Anonymous
04/18/2013 03:01
Subject: Why re-district JKLM; why won't DCPS build additions and/or a new ES in Upper NW? Q from Cap Hill
Anonymous wrote:
And DCPS might very well be right, although it still remains unclear what space could be reconfured in the minds of those demanding that Brent accommodate in future years. The cutodial closet, cafeteria/all-purpose room, library?
Of course it also remains unclear how much Brent will be in demand down the track. The school population will almost certainly continue to rise steadily, but whether that will be at a rate of 10-15% a year (as for the past two years) or more, is anybody's guess.
DC Charter will surely continue to open and expand schools, mostly language immersion, attractive to some IB Brent families. And SWS always gets a few Brent families. Brent will need a 3rd K class in SY 2015-2016 if most of the 31 on the preschool waiting list turn up, I'm guessing that 2/3 will. But will that mean a 3rd K class every year from now on...?
Some of the demand for Brent is going to come from greater challenge in the upper grades than any other DCPS HIll school is providing. E.g. last night at the PTA meeting, Principal Young announced the fall introduction of 6th grade math for advanced 5th graders, and upper grades math classes meeting at the same time, so that a 3rd grader could take 4th, or even 5th grade math. Excellent!
Anonymous
04/17/2013 22:01
Subject: Why re-district JKLM; why won't DCPS build additions and/or a new ES in Upper NW? Q from Cap Hill
Anonymous wrote:If parents dot want trailers then Brent will lose pk3. Without a strong middle school option 5th grade will continue to be small so that give room. With pk3 gone, 5th grade self limiting, reconfiguring current space and making class sizes larger DCPS will consider the problem fixed.
And DCPS might very well be right, although it still remains unclear what space could be reconfured in the minds of those demanding that Brent accommodate in future years. The cutodial closet, cafeteria/all-purpose room, library?
Anonymous
04/17/2013 16:00
Subject: Re:Why re-district JKLM; why won't DCPS build additions and/or a new ES in Upper NW? Q from Cap Hil
Not unreasonable to suggest this, but then how much does DCPS go for what's reasonable? Maybe 10% of the time?
Anonymous
04/17/2013 13:03
Subject: Re:Why re-district JKLM; why won't DCPS build additions and/or a new ES in Upper NW? Q from Cap Hil
^ reading the writing on the wall, brent is going to lose preschool anyway, not enough room or nearly enough farms kids, only question is when, SY 2014-2015 or SY 2015-2016.
the problem will thus be fixed for another year or two without changing boundaries, but probably not long-term. they should going with van ness as a pressure valve in the medium term. i like the idea of warning parents on the periphery (say two or three blocks from the southern boundary) not to expect brent for 0-2 year olds.
the problem will thus be fixed for another year or two without changing boundaries, but probably not long-term. they should going with van ness as a pressure valve in the medium term. i like the idea of warning parents on the periphery (say two or three blocks from the southern boundary) not to expect brent for 0-2 year olds.
Anonymous
04/17/2013 11:44
Subject: Why re-district JKLM; why won't DCPS build additions and/or a new ES in Upper NW? Q from Cap Hill
If parents dot want trailers then Brent will lose pk3. Without a strong middle school option 5th grade will continue to be small so that give room. With pk3 gone, 5th grade self limiting, reconfiguring current space and making class sizes larger DCPS will consider the problem fixed.
Anonymous
04/17/2013 11:37
Subject: Why re-district JKLM; why won't DCPS build additions and/or a new ES in Upper NW? Q from Cap Hill
Anonymous wrote:Np here and Brent parent. If you push southern Brent families to Van Ness, how will that work with CSX fixing up the railroad? Won't all those roads that go under the freeway towards Van Ness be closed? So there would be no way for kids north of the freeway to walk to Van Ness. Please correct me if I am wrong. I love the idea of being zoned for Van Ness, but only if it is actually accessable.
I think building up Brent is better option until CSX is finished. Could DCPS place a trailer or two on the roof of Brent rather than on the playground? Maybe one above the cafeteria and one above the third floor? OR maybe sacrifice the cafeteria to add a couple classes there? it could just be temporary until CSX was done.
What about asking DCPS to review boundaries again in five years, once CSX has been completed? They really ought to get in the mode of doing that system-wide, as one PP suggested.
No, trailers can't go on the roof of Brent, and a second story can't be built on the roof of the one-story section of the school. A recent structural assessment revealed that the roof couldn't support the weight. DCPS would have to tear down the entire one-story wing and rebuild. That's possible, but obviously not likely, since they don't seem to add permanent additions to schools unless perhaps they're doing school wide renovations. Brent had one in 2005 and won't be due for another for many years.
The first meeting of the Brent School Boundaries Working Group will take place Thurs. May 9th in the school library, at 6:30. Look for an email announcement if you attended the April 11th meeting and signed in, or have sent an email to futurebrent@yahoo.com, to discuss options.
Anonymous
04/17/2013 10:47
Subject: Why re-district JKLM; why won't DCPS build additions and/or a new ES in Upper NW? Q from Cap Hill
As a parent with two active kids at Brent, I'm very opposed to any trailers on the asphalt. Asking a 5 year old to sit quietly and pay attention is tiring for them; it becomes impossible if they don't have the opportunity to run around during recess.
Anonymous
04/17/2013 10:40
Subject: Why re-district JKLM; why won't DCPS build additions and/or a new ES in Upper NW? Q from Cap Hill
Np here and Brent parent. If you push southern Brent families to Van Ness, how will that work with CSX fixing up the railroad? Won't all those roads that go under the freeway towards Van Ness be closed? So there would be no way for kids north of the freeway to walk to Van Ness. Please correct me if I am wrong. I love the idea of being zoned for Van Ness, but only if it is actually accessable.
I think building up Brent is better option until CSX is finished. Could DCPS place a trailer or two on the roof of Brent rather than on the playground? Maybe one above the cafeteria and one above the third floor? OR maybe sacrifice the cafeteria to add a couple classes there? it could just be temporary until CSX was done.
I think building up Brent is better option until CSX is finished. Could DCPS place a trailer or two on the roof of Brent rather than on the playground? Maybe one above the cafeteria and one above the third floor? OR maybe sacrifice the cafeteria to add a couple classes there? it could just be temporary until CSX was done.
Anonymous
04/16/2013 22:34
Subject: Why re-district JKLM; why won't DCPS build additions and/or a new ES in Upper NW? Q from Cap Hill
Anonymous wrote:As a resident of Ward 3, I would much prefer for the district to re-zone every 5 years to flex to the current demands...
A zone can be called "Elementary School Flex" so people know that if they buy in that area, they may be moved to 'right size' schools.
This would be a much less expensive option than building schools to bubbles and than having schols that are under capacity.
OP yet again. Not bad, PP. The southern zone of the Brent District looks ripe for your creative ES Flex label. If Van Ness comes on-line for SY 2015-2016, and gets off to a good start with a mostly high-SES student body and strong leadership, why not have families from around E to I Streets SE in the Brent District head there? Trailers and 30 kids per class at Brent long-term may not be worth fighting for.
Your system only works if you aren't also pushing high-SES parents to struggling programs, like Tyler Traditional next to Brent. Within a few years, Brent's DC-CAS scores will be above 80 while Tyler Traditional's are unlikely to have broken out of the 30s, the 40s at best. In this case, it doesn't matter if you try push upper-middle-class families every 50 years or every 5; they aren't going.
Anonymous
04/16/2013 22:24
Subject: Re:Why re-district JKLM; why won't DCPS build additions and/or a new ES in Upper NW? Q from Cap Hil
Anonymous wrote:Just to say that trailers look ugly on the outside but inside are quite roomy and sunny. TO have a school with trailers nowadays is a sign of a sucessful school.
At the elementary school level, a friend who teaches says she prefers the trailers since they frequently have their own bathrooms--the little kids are not sent down the hall to the bathroom, but can stay close to the teacher.
Overcrowding is not great, but the schools that are not crowded are often not considered good schools.
Sorry.
OP again. Sure, but look at Brent's small playground and please tell us where DCPS could put more than one double classroom trailer (which would eat up most of the asphalt area). I visited Murch last year when we were looking at houses around Van Ness. They've got half a dozen trailers but also a playground that's still roughly three times larger than Brent's.
Anonymous
04/16/2013 21:06
Subject: Why re-district JKLM; why won't DCPS build additions and/or a new ES in Upper NW? Q from Cap Hill
As a resident of Ward 3, I would much prefer for the district to re-zone every 5 years to flex to the current demands.
5 years ago, some people who were zoned for Hearst were able to convince DCPS that they should redraw the line and they are now in bounds for Janney.
Doing this may make Hearst and Eaton more desireable. A zone can be called "Elementary School Flex" so people know that if they buy in that area, they may be moved to 'right size' schools.
This would be a much less expensive option than building schools to bubbles and than having schols that are under capacity.
5 years ago, some people who were zoned for Hearst were able to convince DCPS that they should redraw the line and they are now in bounds for Janney.
Doing this may make Hearst and Eaton more desireable. A zone can be called "Elementary School Flex" so people know that if they buy in that area, they may be moved to 'right size' schools.
This would be a much less expensive option than building schools to bubbles and than having schols that are under capacity.
Anonymous
04/16/2013 18:17
Subject: Re:Why re-district JKLM; why won't DCPS build additions and/or a new ES in Upper NW? Q from Cap Hil
Anonymous wrote:+1. Excellent idea.
Fact is, DCPS is bad at right-sizing schools in both low-SES and high-SES neighborhoods. Simple incompetence. Any wonder that, within a few years, we will be the country's only school system with a majority of students in charters?
I'm holding out hope that Gray either won't run or won't win, opening the door to the election of a mayor who will appoint a schools chancellor with the moxie to right-size more schools. Kaya's nonsense about hanging onto a dozen shuttered buildings in poor neighborhoods to deal with future overflow needs to go. Auction off buildings and pay for more capacity in areas where more is needed. WotP needs more capacity right now, and the Hill will shortly if more than half the schools remain Ward 7 and 8 enclaves.
In other cities, GT programs popular with middle-class families are set up in struggling and under-enrolled schools to draw in strong students fast.
+1. DCPS is incompetent - no doubt about it. Both Gray and Kaya need to go- it can't happen too soon.
DCPS remodels schools WOTP without seemingly looking at any demographics so that the schools are overcrowded as soon as the remodeling is done- Janney, Deal and Wilson come to mind. Right now they are going to remodel Hearst- and I know it draws many OOB kids, but why remodel the school for 350 capacity? Didn't DCPS just change funding for ES and make schools under 400 receive less funding because they are small schools? Is facilities a separate entity? It sure appears that way. It seems like every year the plan is reactive- there is NEVER any forward thinking coming from downtown.
Anonymous
04/16/2013 17:19
Subject: Re:Why re-district JKLM; why won't DCPS build additions and/or a new ES in Upper NW? Q from Cap Hil
Just to say that trailers look ugly on the outside but inside are quite roomy and sunny. TO have a school with trailers nowadays is a sign of a sucessful school.
At the elementary school level, a friend who teaches says she prefers the trailers since they frequently have their own bathrooms--the little kids are not sent down the hall to the bathroom, but can stay close to the teacher.
Overcrowding is not great, but the schools that are not crowded are often not considered good schools.
Sorry.
At the elementary school level, a friend who teaches says she prefers the trailers since they frequently have their own bathrooms--the little kids are not sent down the hall to the bathroom, but can stay close to the teacher.
Overcrowding is not great, but the schools that are not crowded are often not considered good schools.
Sorry.
Anonymous
04/16/2013 16:17
Subject: Why re-district JKLM; why won't DCPS build additions and/or a new ES in Upper NW? Q from Cap Hill
If the school is over-crowded because every child who's eligible within the school boundaries attend, then isn't that a good thing?
Anonymous
04/16/2013 15:31
Subject: Why re-district JKLM; why won't DCPS build additions and/or a new ES in Upper NW? Q from Cap Hill
Not practical for the boundaries of the over-crowded school to be the determining factor in a city where one school has test scores in the 80s and an under-enrolled neighboring school has test scores in the 20s or 30s. Parents won't go to the other school; they'll go to privates, charters MoCo or VA first. Who gains?
all DCPS cares about is most kids testing proficient! they'd rather that you left the system if your kid can't or lives in a white zone. they know middle class families have options and wish they'd take em rather than stick around in trailers at jklm