Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here we go again about the middle school problem. The thread is about PK3 so let's stick to that. The boundary is not changing. The Upcoming PK4 class is an anomaly like the current K class so it will work itself out next year just as the K class figured it out. This past PK3 lottery was fine and got plenty of IB kids in as well as all IB with siblings. There is no issue and PK3 is likely here to stay.

How many IB kids didn't get in this year? Wasn't it like 20 or so? Why not let them in? And how did the K class work itself out? You mean the got old enough to go to K?

For the people who support PS3 without having a little one coming up, why? Letting in less than 50% of the IB kids without siblings is one of the worse rates in the city.

There are at least 15 IB kids on the PK3 WL this year, and (as everyone has acknowledged) this year was an admittedly small cohort. So in a "small" year, 1/3 of IB kids are shut out, and in a "large" year (last year), 2/3 are shut out. It is not correct to say there is no issue or that it will "work itself out."

PK3 is not mandatory. People are upset because they have to pay another year of daycare. It works itself out in K which is required and all inbound students are accepted. Getting rid of PK3 wont' be a real option unless IB kids coming in at K are causing serious overcrowding issues.

So this isn't true at all. Kids that are shut out of PS3 are shut out for two years instead of one. This year there was one spot for PK4 offered (with nine IB w/siblings on the WL).

The other issue is what happens when this kids return in K. 40 of the kids were there for 3 and 4 while 30 kids were brand new. That was a large adjustment for all involved and it is totally unnecessary.

Again, ask anyone who has been through this and they will tell you they would prefer an almost guaranteed spot at PK4.

PP here. I have been through it multiple times at Brent. Youngest in K and adjustment was not an issue as far as we were concerned. I'm not sure what the big adjustments were that you endured but would be glad to know.

I am assuming your youngest attended Brent for PS3 and PK4. During that time they met several friends, got to know the school, the teachers, etc. Now think about the kids that did not get in. They arrive in a class where people have been going to school with each other for basically half of their lives. Even if they have been in pre-school (and chances are they have) things are different and you might know a handful of people.

As everyone will admit, there are very few "at-risk" IB kids at Brent. Most of the families send their kids to pre-school or have other arrangements that prepare their kids for ECE. So why pretend that PS3 is so important for the child's development.

Instead what is happening if you are driving a wedge between new IB families at 3. Of the 70 IB families that applied for PS3 3 years ago (the current Ks), 10 did not come back for K. Some moved, some went charter or private. My question is why would DCPS want to drive families away from the school system that early and to what ends?

Take a longer view, there have been a number of IB families who have used Brent for daycare in PK3 and/or PK4, then went private for K. Of the 10 families that didn't come back for K, I'm sure some of them would have left even if they had gotten in for PK3 or PK4. Yes there is an adjustment for the new kids but that happens every year. The new kids in K have been split between all classes so it isn't like 1 new child is going into a class full of kids who have been together. My child has made friends with new to Brent kids as well as kids who weren't with her in previous classes.

I would urge kindness from all on this thread. Our family has now been on both sides - oldest waitlisted for two years, younger sibling now in PK3. Being waitlisted did suck. In the "first world problems" version of sucking, but it did suck. Trying to find a good preschool and commuting to it ate up massive amounts of time (and for others, massive amounts of money. $30K for two additional years of Hill Preschool, anyone?). There was no easy Van Ness option for us, and there won't be for most future waitlistees. And I wouldn't say that we now feel like outsiders at Brent, but I would say that having large numbers of kids waitlisted isn't great for social cohesion.

But in response to the original question, I don't think there will be any changes to the preK format at Brent unless they are driven by the need for another 5th grade classroom. It's easier to keep things the way they are for numerous reasons (mandates from Central Office, teacher preference, preference of current families with younger siblings coming in for PK3, controlling enrollment numbers).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here we go again about the middle school problem. The thread is about PK3 so let's stick to that. The boundary is not changing. The Upcoming PK4 class is an anomaly like the current K class so it will work itself out next year just as the K class figured it out. This past PK3 lottery was fine and got plenty of IB kids in as well as all IB with siblings. There is no issue and PK3 is likely here to stay.

How many IB kids didn't get in this year? Wasn't it like 20 or so? Why not let them in? And how did the K class work itself out? You mean the got old enough to go to K?

For the people who support PS3 without having a little one coming up, why? Letting in less than 50% of the IB kids without siblings is one of the worse rates in the city.

There are at least 15 IB kids on the PK3 WL this year, and (as everyone has acknowledged) this year was an admittedly small cohort. So in a "small" year, 1/3 of IB kids are shut out, and in a "large" year (last year), 2/3 are shut out. It is not correct to say there is no issue or that it will "work itself out."

PK3 is not mandatory. People are upset because they have to pay another year of daycare. It works itself out in K which is required and all inbound students are accepted. Getting rid of PK3 wont' be a real option unless IB kids coming in at K are causing serious overcrowding issues.

So this isn't true at all. Kids that are shut out of PS3 are shut out for two years instead of one. This year there was one spot for PK4 offered (with nine IB w/siblings on the WL).

The other issue is what happens when this kids return in K. 40 of the kids were there for 3 and 4 while 30 kids were brand new. That was a large adjustment for all involved and it is totally unnecessary.

Again, ask anyone who has been through this and they will tell you they would prefer an almost guaranteed spot at PK4.

PP here. I have been through it multiple times at Brent. Youngest in K and adjustment was not an issue as far as we were concerned. I'm not sure what the big adjustments were that you endured but would be glad to know.

I am assuming your youngest attended Brent for PS3 and PK4. During that time they met several friends, got to know the school, the teachers, etc. Now think about the kids that did not get in. They arrive in a class where people have been going to school with each other for basically half of their lives. Even if they have been in pre-school (and chances are they have) things are different and you might know a handful of people.

As everyone will admit, there are very few "at-risk" IB kids at Brent. Most of the families send their kids to pre-school or have other arrangements that prepare their kids for ECE. So why pretend that PS3 is so important for the child's development.

Instead what is happening if you are driving a wedge between new IB families at 3. Of the 70 IB families that applied for PS3 3 years ago (the current Ks), 10 did not come back for K. Some moved, some went charter or private. My question is why would DCPS want to drive families away from the school system that early and to what ends?

Similar problems at Peabody with a large number of IB families shut out of PK3 and 4. We are very happy with our private PK but are unsure if we will enroll for K and may go elsewhere. It has occurred to me before that if we had gotten in for PK 3 or 4 and our child had made friends etc, we would probably be 100% in for K, vs the 50% at best at this point.

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP, but it is worth noting that many of the nearby PK3 programs you mention have filled with IB kids this year. Van Ness has a WL of at least 140 for PK3. So there are IB folks who were shut out of Brent and also out of 11 other PK programs on the Hill. The other nearby options aren't really available anymore.

No doubt things continue to be in flux year to year. Many were caught flat-footed two years ago when a large number of families with sibling preference did not get a lottery seat for PK3. This anomaly repeated the following year, but affected far fewer families, but seems not to have been an issue for the cohort enrolling in PK3 this August. Aside from the complaint that it's unfair that some families get to attend Brent gor two years, most of whom have an older sibling already attending, while the remainder are locked out until Kindergarten, I've yet to hear any specific issue that results from merging the two groups as has happened in K this year. I would be far more upset about the boundary cheaters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here we go again about the middle school problem. The thread is about PK3 so let's stick to that. The boundary is not changing. The Upcoming PK4 class is an anomaly like the current K class so it will work itself out next year just as the K class figured it out. This past PK3 lottery was fine and got plenty of IB kids in as well as all IB with siblings. There is no issue and PK3 is likely here to stay.

How many IB kids didn't get in this year? Wasn't it like 20 or so? Why not let them in? And how did the K class work itself out? You mean the got old enough to go to K?

For the people who support PS3 without having a little one coming up, why? Letting in less than 50% of the IB kids without siblings is one of the worse rates in the city.

There are at least 15 IB kids on the PK3 WL this year, and (as everyone has acknowledged) this year was an admittedly small cohort. So in a "small" year, 1/3 of IB kids are shut out, and in a "large" year (last year), 2/3 are shut out. It is not correct to say there is no issue or that it will "work itself out."

PK3 is not mandatory. People are upset because they have to pay another year of daycare. It works itself out in K which is required and all inbound students are accepted. Getting rid of PK3 wont' be a real option unless IB kids coming in at K are causing serious overcrowding issues.

So this isn't true at all. Kids that are shut out of PS3 are shut out for two years instead of one. This year there was one spot for PK4 offered (with nine IB w/siblings on the WL).

The other issue is what happens when this kids return in K. 40 of the kids were there for 3 and 4 while 30 kids were brand new. That was a large adjustment for all involved and it is totally unnecessary.

Again, ask anyone who has been through this and they will tell you they would prefer an almost guaranteed spot at PK4.

PP here. I have been through it multiple times at Brent. Youngest in K and adjustment was not an issue as far as we were concerned. I'm not sure what the big adjustments were that you endured but would be glad to know.

I am assuming your youngest attended Brent for PS3 and PK4. During that time they met several friends, got to know the school, the teachers, etc. Now think about the kids that did not get in. They arrive in a class where people have been going to school with each other for basically half of their lives. Even if they have been in pre-school (and chances are they have) things are different and you might know a handful of people.

As everyone will admit, there are very few "at-risk" IB kids at Brent. Most of the families send their kids to pre-school or have other arrangements that prepare their kids for ECE. So why pretend that PS3 is so important for the child's development.

Instead what is happening if you are driving a wedge between new IB families at 3. Of the 70 IB families that applied for PS3 3 years ago (the current Ks), 10 did not come back for K. Some moved, some went charter or private. My question is why would DCPS want to drive families away from the school system that early and to what ends?

Can we all agree that spreading the Brent three-year olds among a number of PK programs will help prepare them for the mass exodus after 4th Grade when they head to charters and privates?

Not the PP, but it is worth noting that many of the nearby PK3 programs you mention have filled with IB kids this year. Van Ness has a WL of at least 140 for PK3. So there are IB folks who were shut out of Brent and also out of 11 other PK programs on the Hill. The other nearby options aren't really available anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here we go again about the middle school problem. The thread is about PK3 so let's stick to that. The boundary is not changing. The Upcoming PK4 class is an anomaly like the current K class so it will work itself out next year just as the K class figured it out. This past PK3 lottery was fine and got plenty of IB kids in as well as all IB with siblings. There is no issue and PK3 is likely here to stay.

How many IB kids didn't get in this year? Wasn't it like 20 or so? Why not let them in? And how did the K class work itself out? You mean the got old enough to go to K?

For the people who support PS3 without having a little one coming up, why? Letting in less than 50% of the IB kids without siblings is one of the worse rates in the city.

There are at least 15 IB kids on the PK3 WL this year, and (as everyone has acknowledged) this year was an admittedly small cohort. So in a "small" year, 1/3 of IB kids are shut out, and in a "large" year (last year), 2/3 are shut out. It is not correct to say there is no issue or that it will "work itself out."

PK3 is not mandatory. People are upset because they have to pay another year of daycare. It works itself out in K which is required and all inbound students are accepted. Getting rid of PK3 wont' be a real option unless IB kids coming in at K are causing serious overcrowding issues.

So this isn't true at all. Kids that are shut out of PS3 are shut out for two years instead of one. This year there was one spot for PK4 offered (with nine IB w/siblings on the WL).

The other issue is what happens when this kids return in K. 40 of the kids were there for 3 and 4 while 30 kids were brand new. That was a large adjustment for all involved and it is totally unnecessary.

Again, ask anyone who has been through this and they will tell you they would prefer an almost guaranteed spot at PK4.

Agree completely (12:08 here). Also, based on last year's WL data, the current large PK3 cohort, once in mandatory Kindergarten, will be more like 30 kids who have been there for two years and 40 brand new kids (all IB). The point being is that "serious overcrowding" is not the only potential issue.

This year's K classes are comprised of about 36 students who have been at Brent for two years of PK, many of whom have older siblings at the school, with the other half having arrived this August. I'm not aware of any issues that have arisen given that most of the new enrollees attended a nearby PK program Appletree, LT, Tyler or Peabody. It's my understanding that a good number of kids shut out of PS3 this year are likewise at Appletree, Van Ness, etc. The overcrowding predicted for K this year never materialized. In fact, the school went ahead and enrolled a number of OOB students. Are there specific concerns that you would care to bring to our attention?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm wondering if this is finally reaching the tipping point as there are enough parents that have lost in the lottery process getting to leadership positions. The issue is, if you have a current 1st grader or up, you don't understand how bad it is. The fact that 9 IB sibling families didn't get in through the lottery last year (mind you there were only 10 in the entire city) should have been a wake up call.

Leadership positions? How bad it is? Parents with kids who are in K or younger lack perspective that comes with having ushered an older kid through the elementary grades. Being an inbound family excluded from PK at Brent sucks, particularly if you have an older kid already attending but it's hardly the end of the world. How many IB families with sibling preference were excluded from PK3 as the result of this year's lottery? It's fair to question whether mixed-age classrooms make the most sense, and it's also fair to ask if maintaining PK4 is the best use of limited resources in terms of serving the larger community, even if Central Office is unlikely to allow Brent to phase out PK3, but don't blow things out of proportion.

We got shut out for PreK3 and are wait listed for PreK4 (trust our luck!) w/older sibling. We're at Van Ness, have made the best of things there, and have wound up loving their ECE program. Van Ness is actually closer to our in-bound Brent house than Brent. Yea, don't blow things out of proportio. We feel very lucky to have Brent and Van Ness despite a few drop-off/pick-up hassles. Everybody survives the ECE stage and, believe me, complaining about bad lottery luck gets ya nowhere, folks.

Glad it works for you, it does not work for everyone. The general point is it does not have to be this way and hopefully it will change in the near future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here we go again about the middle school problem. The thread is about PK3 so let's stick to that. The boundary is not changing. The Upcoming PK4 class is an anomaly like the current K class so it will work itself out next year just as the K class figured it out. This past PK3 lottery was fine and got plenty of IB kids in as well as all IB with siblings. There is no issue and PK3 is likely here to stay.

How many IB kids didn't get in this year? Wasn't it like 20 or so? Why not let them in? And how did the K class work itself out? You mean the got old enough to go to K?

For the people who support PS3 without having a little one coming up, why? Letting in less than 50% of the IB kids without siblings is one of the worse rates in the city.

There are at least 15 IB kids on the PK3 WL this year, and (as everyone has acknowledged) this year was an admittedly small cohort. So in a "small" year, 1/3 of IB kids are shut out, and in a "large" year (last year), 2/3 are shut out. It is not correct to say there is no issue or that it will "work itself out."

PK3 is not mandatory. People are upset because they have to pay another year of daycare. It works itself out in K which is required and all inbound students are accepted. Getting rid of PK3 wont' be a real option unless IB kids coming in at K are causing serious overcrowding issues.

So this isn't true at all. Kids that are shut out of PS3 are shut out for two years instead of one. This year there was one spot for PK4 offered (with nine IB w/siblings on the WL).

The other issue is what happens when this kids return in K. 40 of the kids were there for 3 and 4 while 30 kids were brand new. That was a large adjustment for all involved and it is totally unnecessary.

Again, ask anyone who has been through this and they will tell you they would prefer an almost guaranteed spot at PK4.

PP here. I have been through it multiple times at Brent. Youngest in K and adjustment was not an issue as far as we were concerned. I'm not sure what the big adjustments were that you endured but would be glad to know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm wondering if this is finally reaching the tipping point as there are enough parents that have lost in the lottery process getting to leadership positions. The issue is, if you have a current 1st grader or up, you don't understand how bad it is. The fact that 9 IB sibling families didn't get in through the lottery last year (mind you there were only 10 in the entire city) should have been a wake up call.

Leadership positions? How bad it is? Parents with kids who are in K or younger lack perspective that comes with having ushered an older kid through the elementary grades. Being an inbound family excluded from PK at Brent sucks, particularly if you have an older kid already attending but it's hardly the end of the world. How many IB families with sibling preference were excluded from PK3 as the result of this year's lottery? It's fair to question whether mixed-age classrooms make the most sense, and it's also fair to ask if maintaining PK4 is the best use of limited resources in terms of serving the larger community, even if Central Office is unlikely to allow Brent to phase out PK3, but don't blow things out of proportion.

We got shut out for PreK3 and are wait listed for PreK4 (trust our luck!) w/older sibling. We're at Van Ness, have made the best of things there, and have wound up loving their ECE program. Van Ness is actually closer to our in-bound Brent house than Brent. Yea, don't blow things out of proportio. We feel very lucky to have Brent and Van Ness despite a few drop-off/pick-up hassles. Everybody survives the ECE stage and, believe me, complaining about bad lottery luck gets ya nowhere, folks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here we go again about the middle school problem. The thread is about PK3 so let's stick to that. The boundary is not changing. The Upcoming PK4 class is an anomaly like the current K class so it will work itself out next year just as the K class figured it out. This past PK3 lottery was fine and got plenty of IB kids in as well as all IB with siblings. There is no issue and PK3 is likely here to stay.

How many IB kids didn't get in this year? Wasn't it like 20 or so? Why not let them in? And how did the K class work itself out? You mean the got old enough to go to K?

For the people who support PS3 without having a little one coming up, why? Letting in less than 50% of the IB kids without siblings is one of the worse rates in the city.

There are at least 15 IB kids on the PK3 WL this year, and (as everyone has acknowledged) this year was an admittedly small cohort. So in a "small" year, 1/3 of IB kids are shut out, and in a "large" year (last year), 2/3 are shut out. It is not correct to say there is no issue or that it will "work itself out."

PK3 is not mandatory. People are upset because they have to pay another year of daycare. It works itself out in K which is required and all inbound students are accepted. Getting rid of PK3 wont' be a real option unless IB kids coming in at K are causing serious overcrowding issues.

So this isn't true at all. Kids that are shut out of PS3 are shut out for two years instead of one. This year there was one spot for PK4 offered (with nine IB w/siblings on the WL).

The other issue is what happens when this kids return in K. 40 of the kids were there for 3 and 4 while 30 kids were brand new. That was a large adjustment for all involved and it is totally unnecessary.

Again, ask anyone who has been through this and they will tell you they would prefer an almost guaranteed spot at PK4.

Agree completely (12:08 here). Also, based on last year's WL data, the current large PK3 cohort, once in mandatory Kindergarten, will be more like 30 kids who have been there for two years and 40 brand new kids (all IB). The point being is that "serious overcrowding" is not the only potential issue.

Most Brent parents send their kids to other PK programs, like the Appletrees, or into another DCPS, if they aren't going charter. Are you saying that Brent PK is vastly different from other PK programs such when IB kids show up at K, they are at a serious disadvantage?

I don't think anyone is saying that Brent PK is vastly different from anywhere else. The purpose of the thread was to discuss the future of Brent PK3, and some posters were pointing out that serious overcrowding at the K level was not the only potential concern raised by how things are working now.

Why would DCPS care about Brent PS3 and PK4 issues when they don't care about Brent's MS problems? Seriously, DCPS does not really care where high SES go, which is going to catch up with them eventually.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here we go again about the middle school problem. The thread is about PK3 so let's stick to that. The boundary is not changing. The Upcoming PK4 class is an anomaly like the current K class so it will work itself out next year just as the K class figured it out. This past PK3 lottery was fine and got plenty of IB kids in as well as all IB with siblings. There is no issue and PK3 is likely here to stay.

How many IB kids didn't get in this year? Wasn't it like 20 or so? Why not let them in? And how did the K class work itself out? You mean the got old enough to go to K?

For the people who support PS3 without having a little one coming up, why? Letting in less than 50% of the IB kids without siblings is one of the worse rates in the city.

There are at least 15 IB kids on the PK3 WL this year, and (as everyone has acknowledged) this year was an admittedly small cohort. So in a "small" year, 1/3 of IB kids are shut out, and in a "large" year (last year), 2/3 are shut out. It is not correct to say there is no issue or that it will "work itself out."

PK3 is not mandatory. People are upset because they have to pay another year of daycare. It works itself out in K which is required and all inbound students are accepted. Getting rid of PK3 wont' be a real option unless IB kids coming in at K are causing serious overcrowding issues.

So this isn't true at all. Kids that are shut out of PS3 are shut out for two years instead of one. This year there was one spot for PK4 offered (with nine IB w/siblings on the WL).

The other issue is what happens when this kids return in K. 40 of the kids were there for 3 and 4 while 30 kids were brand new. That was a large adjustment for all involved and it is totally unnecessary.

Again, ask anyone who has been through this and they will tell you they would prefer an almost guaranteed spot at PK4.

Agree completely (12:08 here). Also, based on last year's WL data, the current large PK3 cohort, once in mandatory Kindergarten, will be more like 30 kids who have been there for two years and 40 brand new kids (all IB). The point being is that "serious overcrowding" is not the only potential issue.

Most Brent parents send their kids to other PK programs, like the Appletrees, or into another DCPS, if they aren't going charter. Are you saying that Brent PK is vastly different from other PK programs such when IB kids show up at K, they are at a serious disadvantage?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here we go again about the middle school problem. The thread is about PK3 so let's stick to that. The boundary is not changing. The Upcoming PK4 class is an anomaly like the current K class so it will work itself out next year just as the K class figured it out. This past PK3 lottery was fine and got plenty of IB kids in as well as all IB with siblings. There is no issue and PK3 is likely here to stay.

How many IB kids didn't get in this year? Wasn't it like 20 or so? Why not let them in? And how did the K class work itself out? You mean the got old enough to go to K?

For the people who support PS3 without having a little one coming up, why? Letting in less than 50% of the IB kids without siblings is one of the worse rates in the city.

There are at least 15 IB kids on the PK3 WL this year, and (as everyone has acknowledged) this year was an admittedly small cohort. So in a "small" year, 1/3 of IB kids are shut out, and in a "large" year (last year), 2/3 are shut out. It is not correct to say there is no issue or that it will "work itself out."

PK3 is not mandatory. People are upset because they have to pay another year of daycare. It works itself out in K which is required and all inbound students are accepted. Getting rid of PK3 wont' be a real option unless IB kids coming in at K are causing serious overcrowding issues.

So this isn't true at all. Kids that are shut out of PS3 are shut out for two years instead of one. This year there was one spot for PK4 offered (with nine IB w/siblings on the WL).

The other issue is what happens when this kids return in K. 40 of the kids were there for 3 and 4 while 30 kids were brand new. That was a large adjustment for all involved and it is totally unnecessary.

Again, ask anyone who has been through this and they will tell you they would prefer an almost guaranteed spot at PK4.

Agree completely (12:08 here). Also, based on last year's WL data, the current large PK3 cohort, once in mandatory Kindergarten, will be more like 30 kids who have been there for two years and 40 brand new kids (all IB). The point being is that "serious overcrowding" is not the only potential issue.