School Admissions Changes Causing 'Chaos'

If you live in brownstone Brooklyn, why the hell are you not sending your kids to private school. Obviously money is not an issue if you are living in that kind of neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 9:24 AM

yes, quickly speed dial and whine to the ny times. grow the f up and let your kids do the same.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 9:26 AM

yes you live in park slope but your little bundle of joy wil be bused to easy ny

too many kids too few seats
go figure?

if you can afford a miliion doallr plus home you can afford private school as well

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 9:26 AM

Another issue: I went to half-day kindergarten in the 1960's and turned out just fine. I believe everyone back then went to half-day kindergarten.

My question is, why should the taxpayers be funding pre-K, which is just glorified baby sitting and proven to be not necessary (we 40-somethings survived) for the development of children?

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 9:26 AM

9:24

Because not -everyone- living in this part of Brownstone Brooklyn is a multimillionaire. As well, many of the schools have great reputations: PS 29, 58, 261...even 32 and 8 are now on the radar. I can afford private school but send my son to PS29.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 9:31 AM

i am so sick of the jealous trolls on this site spiting those of us who live in brownstone brooklyn. you all just wish you too could live here. if we are not happy with something, it's our right to complain and raise the issue just as if you were to complain about the hours at the general store in your lovely hamlet of lodi new jesey.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 9:37 AM

Pre-K may not be necessary, but it's basically a constructive, safe, positive place for kids to be 6-7 hours a day. Hugely underpriced for those who use it, so no wonder people are horrified that it may no longer be so accessible.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 9:37 AM

Pre-k is glorified baby sitting at taxpayers expense. I'd rather see the money going to maintain and upgrade schools for K-12 students.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 9:38 AM

1-3 - so I have to pay for everyone else's school with my property taxes, and then I have to pay for private school as well on top of that?

Thats fair I suppose (a la CMU)

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 9:38 AM

Believe it or not, things are different than they were in the early 1960s. Kids are expected to read in K these days. My 6year old was doing venn diagrams last week. They are trying to improve schools -- I thought that's what we all wanted? This is about a computer screw-up.

And what about middle school? You want to scrap that too?

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 9:39 AM

Wow- I think it HAS been proven how beneficial pre-k is. And if you want the people who are wiping your ass when you're old to have an ounce of mercy for you it's best that you invest in them now.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 9:41 AM

I am not trying to turn this into a city v. suburbs debate. But score one for the suburbs.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 9:42 AM

Right on 9:41. We live in park slope with two working parents on public servant salaries with 3 little kids. I would have been nice to get a public pre-K spot. We applied to 5 schools, got in nowhere. Day car, sitting and, preschool tuition put us well over the $3K mark per month. I accept the there are limited spot. I just want to trust that the system for enrolling children is fair, reasonable, and trustworthy.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 9:50 AM

I understand that 20,000 students applied citywide. 17,000 kids got pre-k seats and of those 15,000 got their first choice.
The DOE claims to have checked the unlucky 3,000 applicants by hand and of those some 200 were wrongly turned down. That works out to about 1% error. Seems like the discontent is being way over hyped and mis-reported.

Pre-k is not mandatory and many schools have cut pre-k seats in order to better manage shrinking budgets.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 9:58 AM

I accept the there are limited spot. I just want to trust that the system for enrolling children is fair, reasonable, and trustworthy.

Probably the most reasonable comment we'll see today. Given it's public policy to have pre-K the process should be transparent.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:00 AM

Score one for the suburbs? Do the additional 10K+ in propertay taxes get counted in the score?

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:01 AM

Warning to politicians and DOE officials: never piss off the Park Slope yuppie mother contingent. They have a massive sense of entitlement and, since none of them work, they have plenty of time to write letters, organize, call politicans, etc.

Go back to dumping on the poor. They have to work for a living and have neither the time nor enegery to stand up for themselves.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:03 AM

OTBKB and Smartmom are about as insipid as they come.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:06 AM

This is a new low on Brownstoner. You're complaining because the city is trying to "over-educate" children?! Nice. Try complaining about the billions/week wasted on an unnecessary f-ing war.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:09 AM

How much is private school tuition in Brooklyn?

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:10 AM

9:31

You send your kid to PS29 when you can afford private school. Thanks a lot asshat for making the public schools even more overcrowded.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:12 AM

Just because some parents can afford private school doesn't mean that their children will be accepted or that the privates have enough space. I do know of families who should have been guaranteed Pre-K slots based on sibling preference but due to DOE errors such as the DOE neglecting to update their database with current addresses, their application was bounced.

The middle school process is another mess. Where are those placement letters? Rumors are starting circulate that they were sent to a "vendor" to be mailed from there. Some families have been notified since placement rosters were sent to the elementary schools and so far I know of two children that were placed in a SURR school even though they didn't select that school. I am sure OTBKB isn't the only parent with a child not on the list.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:15 AM

10:12

No, I send my kid to public school because I -believe- in public school education.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:17 AM

Putnamdenizen,
The pre-K applications were sent to a Pennsylvania company for processing.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:19 AM

The fundamental problem is that there are insufficient pre-K spots in "good" schools in Brownstone Brooklyn. In the next year or two there will be insufficient kindergarten spots. Re-zoning is needed, but it is extremely difficult to do politically. In the meantime, there will be lotteries for pre-K and kindergarten spots, with some children send to poorly performing schools relatively far from home.

Naturally, people are furious about this. It is a nasty surprise, at best.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:22 AM

One thing for sure.

All you brokers out there will no longer be able to write,
" Zoned for PS _____" because families no longer are guaranteed their zoned school. Some people buy homes -based- on the school zone. Doesnt make a difference any more, I guess.

What I've heard is that there is a chance the same process of applications will happen next year for K, which is when the -real- grumbling will begin.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:27 AM

10:10 -- private school tuition is close to $30,000 per year per child. Most of the schools are pretty parsimonious about giving financial aid, and if your HHI is over $150,000 a year you don't qualify for any.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:29 AM

It never fails to gall me how Brownstoner commenters pat themselves on the back for their community spirit, yet yanking your kids out of the public school system and into private is considered not just OK but--judging by 10:12 a.m.--a moral obligation.

I have kids in a good but not most-sought-after public school in Brooklyn; but the school is getting better by leaps and bounds precisely because parents in the neighborhood (who have spare time to invest and extra money to donate) are not fleeing to private schools but staying and getting involved.

If you take your kids to private, you're not a fully involved member of your community. It doesn't matter how "diverse" your neighbors are or how smug that makes you feel if you're too good to let your kids go to school with their kids. Do you think your neighbors believe you're making a wonderful contribution to the community because you're restoring your freaking wainscoting? Spare me.

Either you're dedicated to supporting and helping your neighborhood's institutions--with your involvement, not just your taxes--or you're a parasite like anyone else. It doesn't matter if you live in Cobble Hill or Crown Heights. You're not a neighbor.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:30 AM

As for living here means I can afford private school, that's a cheap canard. I suppose I could sell my house to pay for private school, but there's the wee issue of where I would live.

Private school is $30K per year per child. For 13 years of private education the cost is $390,000 for one child. I have two.

It astonishes me that ANYONE can afford private school.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:33 AM

Pre K programs are federally funded by the way.

They also provide free immunization and nursing care to children of uninsured families. How evil is that!

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:37 AM

The DOE set rules to make it more fair. Before, parents with more social capital were able to work the system and get their kid in. Others were left out. So they came up with a simpler form. The problem was, the operation in PA screwed it up. People who should have gotten in didnt and vice versa. The screw-ups are in the thousands, not hundreds.

The other problem is they now want to use this same system for K -- you used to be guaranteed seat in your zoned school. No more. From a real estate standpoint, it's important since people all over the country pay more to live in an area with superior schools. It's not a "park slope yuppie" thing.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:41 AM

I'm confused about the "plus one for the suburbs" comment.

It would seem to me that the incredible number of children now seeking admission to schools in NYC (15 years ago you COULDN'T PAY someone to attend 99% of NYC Public Schools) is a HUGE plus one for the City....

They will figure it out. While this news may not bode well for a few parents, it bodes EXTREMELY WELL for the NYC Public Education System.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:43 AM

Putnam D - how on earth did you make the logic leap from the comments posted above yours to the idea that people are advocating not funding public schools?

You seemed to be very reasonable in the past, but your recent posts are looking more off the wall.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:43 AM

$30k per child but no tax credit. So thats $50k of salary per child, per year. jeepers.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:46 AM

The studies "proving" the benefits of pre-K are undertaken by the educrats who have a vested interest in continuing pre-K.

In the 'burbs, other than in some low-income areas, there is no pre-K. Tell the parents of kids in Scarsdale that their children are at a disadvantage to PS kids because the PS kids have pre-K.

Show me see a study of SAT scores of children from families of similar means who attended pre-K and did not attend pre-K. There will be NO DIFFERENCE.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:54 AM

I am so sick of all these parents in Cobble Hill, CG, and especially PS that buy $2 M plus brownstones and complain that the public schools are overcrowded and will not admit their child. I'm sorry but if your making that kind of cash to buy a brownstone, you have more than enough cash to send your kids to private school and allow other less fortunate families a chance to attend their local public school.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 11:03 AM

10.54 - don't worry about those studies, Look at the neuroscience studies in Nature and Science. 1-4yrs is critical.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 11:07 AM

I am so sick of people who say they are so sick of everything.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 11:20 AM

11:03 - One problem with your "logic"

I grew up going to public school, live in Park Slope in a brownstone now and would NEVER send my children to private school. I am a firm believer in the Public School System.

It isn't about what's affordable or not (although since we bought our house here for 600K, we are far from the demographic you describe) it's about what one believes in.

From my experience, many children do better in Public Schools. Since my wife and I both came from very modest means and went to public schools and both put ourselves through college and masters degrees, I would like to instill these same things in my children.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 11:22 AM

Public pre-K in NYC is partially funded by the state. The state (maybe it gets federal funds?) pays for 2.5 hours of pre-K a day: 9 to 11:30. No one wants only 2.5 hours of pre-K a day. Schools with these "half day" programs sit empty. So, schools with full-day pre-Ks (8:30 to 2:30) are paying for the rest of the day out of their general education budget.

It is a very legitimate question why schools in wealthy neighborhood continue to offer full-day pre-K when they may have to do lotteries for overcrowded kindergarten classes. PS 8 wanted to jettison its pre-K program, but the Board of Ed wouldn't allow it. Instead, PS 8 may have to put trailers in its playground for a pre-K program it doesn't want and probably isn't needed. WHY?

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 11:22 AM

Private shools suck at music and art (if they even offer it).

Some of the things that ARE PROVEN to enhance the lives of children.

For that reason, we chose Public Schools.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 11:23 AM

yeah, St Anns doesn't have any arts at all

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 11:32 AM

This is a disaster, not just the pre-K assignments but the 5th grade middle school assignments.

WHERE ARE THE LETTERS FROM THE DOE?

Parents of 5th graders were told that middle school assignment info would be sent in early MAY.

The other disaster is real estate values: houses in 321 just lost a good chunk of value if the elementary schools aren't really "zoned" anymore. This is a big deal, people.

Hats off to the DOE for a cluster%$#k par excellence.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 11:36 AM

2 points, folks.

1) pre-K is shown to be most beneficial to disadvantaged kids. By 3, kids on public assistance have heard about 20K words, working class kids have heard about 35K words, kids of professional parents have heard about 75K words. It's about leveling the playing field. Pre-K is critical to closing the achievement gap for those with fewer resources. Extrapolate from this info what you will, vis a vis park slope kids and elsewhere.

2) As a kid, I was bussed halfway across my city in the 70s in Boston (remember, the place with the racial issues?) and I did FINE. My safety school when I was applying to college was Amherst, and I'm no genius. Going to a crappy school won't kill you. In fact, it will give you a keen sense of what a bum deal those less affluent than yourself tend to get, as a rule. This is a useful lesson.

2B) By the way, going to an Ivy, where I went, is not a recipe for happiness, wealth, achievement, or well-adjustedness. Just hope your kid is happy and stop stressing out about whether or not he can read by age 4.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 11:41 AM

10:54 - yes 1-4 years are critical. But what does that mean? It means that young children should be read to by their parents. It does not have to be done in a pre-K setting. And all parents who are using these schools read to their children.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 11:41 AM

Hey North Sleeper, I'm pretty sure that mommy and daddy came through and helped you with the down payment costs or gave you job on Wall Street, where you make $1 M a year.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 11:42 AM

The outright ignorance of some of the comments here is truly sad. I can afford private school easily for the kids, and I think (not positive here) that they are smart enough to get in, but I happen to believe in public education. I really don't want my kids going to a school where everyone is rich, so that they get a warped perspective on Brooklyn and life. I know people who feel "poor" at private schools because their family only makes $200,000/year. If you don't think that trickles down to the kids, you are nuts. I tell my kid that most of his classmates at his public school are rich, because their families can afford to buy them everything they need, and lots of extra toys as well. Fortunately for us, we have a local zoned school that parents like myself took a chance on improving and it's now a majority of middle class families (or perhaps upper middle class by nationwide standards). But there are still more than 1/3 of the kids who qualify for a free lunch.

Telling parents who can afford it they should opt out of the public school system is simply insane -- when that happens, the schools decline tremendously, and everyone left is stuck with the results. In the best public school districts in the country -- including many in the most right wing conservative areas -- ALL students use the public schools, and the ones shipped off to private school are often the ones with issues. (I'm generalizing here, of course this isn't true in all neighborhoods). But the more private schools a town has locally, the more likely it is that the public schools are declining.

Pre-K should be reserved for kids whose families have incomes below a certain threshhold. If there are still spots, kids could apply via lottery. Probably most wealthier parents would bite the bullet and just pay for one more year of preschool. But the DOE, in its' wisdom, told parents that siblings in the zone would get first priority, and then screwed it up. And, most frustrating is that they paid some private vendor god knows how much money to handle this. There's nothing sadder than the waste of money paid by the DOE to private vendors (like the "quality review") that could have been spent on our kids' education.

But those of you who think everyone who can afford it should opt out of public school sound like Republicans, because that's exactly what Republicans want. Convince people all government run programs are bad, and we can get rid of all of them. What a shame. Fortunately, the vast improvement in public schools in Brooklyn is the result of parents who didn't listen to you.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 11:46 AM

@Biff: 10:30 here. I have no doubt nearly every parent tries to do what's best for their kids. But I think many parents of means do so exclusively at the expense of doing what's best for their communities--and are overlooking how, unless your home is a fortress, the best interest of your neighborhood IS the best interest of your child. Particularly when you consider (as 11:41 noted above by way of making a different argument) that most kids of parents who can afford private school themselves are so advantaged that they will do well at nearly any school.

Certainly there other ways of helping your community than supporting the local school--if you are in a neighborhood watch, or pick up trash, or volunteer with the elderly, etc., great--but probably none is as significant. And I see little sign in the comments here any way that many people are making these unspecified contributions.

What I see instead a lot of at Brownstoner instead is the attitude that their presence itself constitutes a contribution to the community.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 11:53 AM

If you want to see what private schools are like in NYC...simply tune in to the hit tv series, Gossip Girl on the WB. I'm being serious here. It's a tv show, but I can tell you from experience that it isn't much different in real life.

You'll yank your kids out of there so fast and put them in public school, you won't know what hit you.

And as a kid growing up in NYC private schools, I would NEVER subject my kids to that.

Rich, spoiled brats who are addicted to sex or drugs or both. The parents are pill popping drunks who are too buys working or travelling to spend much time with the kids, so they produce offspring with no sense of themselves, no sense of what a dollar is worth (fine, not much now) and no sense of arts or culture.

They do, however learn quite quickly how to use a rolled up 20 dollar bill for something other than a new shirt at the Gap...

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 12:10 PM

Huh. So, 11:33, these people you are renting to who help to pay part of your mortgage while you live paycheck to paycheck, would those be "scum of the Earth," "moron," "bitter renters?" The ones whose checks are "due on the first of the month" (and thank G-d, cause it sounds like you'd be in hot water if they weren't).

I rent (and not in "prime" Brooklyn, but in Kensington). I do not live paycheck to paycheck. I'm also not bitter. I'm comfortable, because I live within my means and put my money where my values are. Renting, while not a perfect thing, has some benefits. You, on the other hand, sound pretty pissed off.

And I send my kid to one of the finest Montessori schools in the city. That was the choice I made. I attended NYC public schools from K-8th grade, during the 1970s-80s, and attended a SUNY school. I turned out fine, but I can tell you that when I entered the workforce I had an ACCUTE sense of the camaraderie between those who attended private institutions (one place where I worked early in my career was famous for interviewing and hiring only Yale grads, as the boss was a Yale graduate. I basically snuck in there.) Providing my child with the absolute best education I can afford is more important to me than wainscoting. Providing her with the best opportunities will continue to be my priority until she's ready to go out and make her own opportunities.

I believe in Public Education in principle, but let's face it, attending one of the top public schools in NYC -- the ones located in "prime" or prestigious neighborhoods -- carries the cachet of private school. I pay tuition. You pay a hefty mortgage to live in the "right" neighborhood. I would say we're more alike than not, except that my kid is going to the school I chose for her in the Fall.

Am I a good neighbor, invested in my community? Well, I shop local, check on my elderly neighbors, bring cookies to my firehouse when I bake, pay my taxes, called to have trees planted in front of our building as part of the Bloomberg plan, take my kid to the local playgrounds, donate toys and contribute to Greenwood. I do what I can.

I am truly sorry for those of you who now have to alter your commutes and childcare plans to accommodate this, or who didn't get a place in the school that drew you to your neighborhood, or who are worried about your home losing value.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 12:13 PM

"My question is, why should the taxpayers be funding pre-K, which is just glorified baby sitting and proven to be not necessary."

So that all the mommies can work to pay all the extra taxes required by all the income support and health care that today's senior citizens get, which they didn't get back in the 1960s.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 12:18 PM

does anyone here happen to know whether the public schools in prospect heights are actually improving, or is it just a pipe dream?

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 12:32 PM

Who needs Jerry Springer when we have Brownstoner?

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 12:33 PM

there is no 11:43

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 12:49 PM

For those that have dog in the middle school fight, OTBKB has an update which indicates that the DOE told elementary school administrators not to share the placement lists with parents until the letters have been mailed. Unbelievable. Fortunately, my child's school did not adhere to this edict and I also received an acceptance letter directly from the middle school. It is now 6/4 and I have received nothing from the DOE.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 12:54 PM

12:13 -- I'm not 11:33am, but I think you are completely misinterpreting what he/she said. I didn't see any reference at all to "bitter renters" nor "scum of the earth". That post was merely reacting to a previous post that said that anyone who owned a brownstone should send their kids to a private school because they were rich and shouldn't be adding to the overcrowded public schools. I am certain you don't agree with those kind of sentiments either. 11:33 was pointing out that there are many brownstone owners who bought when prices were low, invested in the public schools to make them better, and were by no means rich enough to simply shell out $20,000+ per year for private, nor should they be encouraged to do so. In fact, my guess would be that someone like 11:33am, who uses the public schools, has many many friends in the neighborhood who rent and the last thing they would do is to belittle them because they rent rather than own.

There is nothing wrong with sending your kid to a private school if that is what's best for them, but the only way a public school will improve is when a large enough tipping point of families from the neighborhood who are middle class like yourself -- whether renters or owners -- are willing to take a chance, enroll in the school, and make it better. You posted that attending a public school in a prime neighborhood carries the cachet of private school, but that was not always the case. I enrolled my kid in a public school that's now considered prestigious, but at the time it was a school that any family with perseverence got a variance out of attending. A little history (and I'm talking only 4 years ago) will show you that schools like PS 8 were avoided like the plague and it was parents willing to take a chance on public schools that meant that school is now a fine school for all kids attending it.

But I do agree with some posters here that one of the best ways a parent can contribute to the neighborhood is to enroll their kids in the public school, if it is at all possible to improve. In a perfect world, a public school that served only the poorest of kids would get huge amounts of money and be a fantastic school. But the reality is that the vast improvement in NYC elementary schools is directly due to the increasing number of middle class parents not opting out of them for private school. Because it's all too easy for the government to ignore the needs of the poor, but harder when there are also middle class parents involved.

Thanks, Biff Champion, I never got a post of the day compliment before.

signed -- 11:46am

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 1:04 PM

12:54, Thanks for that...How can the DOE get away with this??? Why are they not sending out this crucial information?

Many of the 5th grade kids are extremely stressed about this, BTW. It's not fair to tell them they will know what school they have been accepted to by early May, yet we still wait a month later.

And where are the realtors and even homeowners without kids on this subject? This whole fiasco tells me that NYC zoned elementary schools are a thing of the past...

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 1:07 PM

"that most kids of parents who can afford private school themselves are so advantaged that they will do well at nearly any school."

I can only assume that your contact with people in the world has been very limited. In most cases people succeed or fail regardless of the school they went to.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 1:07 PM

George Bush attended private school and the best graduate program for business in the world.

He will go down in history as the worst President in the history of the United States (with the lowest approval rating of anyone before him).

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 1:12 PM

my son and 3 of his classmates in his preschool (grace) class alone were accepted to St Anns for K. And these were the non-sibling/legacy kids.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 1:25 PM

1:07 - I have no idea how they can get away this. Somehow on Monday I managed to get a name of number of someone whom I assume is with district 15 enrollment and they were waiting for Tweed to email the placement rosters. The person I spoke with told that they would wait all night for the rosters if they had to. From what I understand, once the rosters were received they would be distributed to the individual elementary schools. I followed up with my child's school and they confirmed that they had the list and I also received a letter from the middle school. But where are our official placement notification letters?

Also, schools have the ELA and perhaps the Math scores but are not releasing them until after DOE holds a press conference. However, if you request them the school has to give them to you.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 1:26 PM

my son and 3 of his classmates in his preschool (grace) class alone were accepted to St Anns for K. And these were the non-sibling/legacy kids.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 1:32 PM

Do people on this site truly believe that everyone in the Slope owns a $2 million brownstone? That no mothers work? Take a walk around the 'hood sometime. Surprisingly, you may encounter some apartment buildings! Sometimes, these are even somewhat reasonably-priced rentals where people have been living a long time! Go figure.

You also might see babysitters. Do a little chatting and you'll find that most daycares are full too. Could it be that parents are working?

As for the comments (9:58) about the number of families affected by the preK debacle , the poster either works for the DOE or at the least is directly quoting same. Even if the numbers cited are correct (big "if"), they refer to sibling issues only and there are many reports of out-of-zone acceptances before in-zone, etc.--which would certainly boost that 1% problem rate.

These non-sibling grievances have not been publicly addressed by a DOE which somehow does not see itself as needing to be accountable to parents, though it spends millions on ensuring that schools are "accountable" according to its own narrow criteria. (Which is why using SAT scores etc to confirm the relative merits of preK vs. non-preK, or private vs. public is also meaningless.)

As for the necessity of preK in general, I too am beginning to think the solution to apportioning the too-few seats should be by income. However, the point remains that THIS YEAR'S application did not list that as a criteria at all and seats should have allotted as per stated criteria.

--parent who never received preK letter...

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 1:35 PM

daveinbedstuy, shut the hell up. You live in the ghetto and cannot compare yourself to North Sleeper here. I could afford to live in the ghetto too but I like to feel safe. Whereas, North Sleeper is just your usual pompous a-hole that you meet in brownstone brooklyn. The type of person that is so proud they bought in the UWS during the 90's, sold their apartment, moved to Brooklyn and now feels entitled and better than everyone else in their community. Dick.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 1:47 PM

The median income for Park Slope is approximately $56,000.

So no, not everyone there owns a 2 million dollar brownstone.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 1:49 PM

anyone purchasing property with young children needs to find a neighborhood with a decent school that is way under crowded and has some potential, but is probably not there yet. check the DOE info, insideschools, and also, any local parents groups (usually found on yahoo).

i sold out of 321 because i could tell that it was going to be a nightmare once my daughter reached school age.

all of the "good" schools are being pushed to the edge, and no, private school, is not a back up for many. yes, i own a million + condo, but i do not have $35K per year of after tax money to give to a private school.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 1:49 PM

As opposed to you, 1:47, a clearly bitter person with obvious agression and self esteem issues...?

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 1:54 PM

1:47 you really have a chip on your shoulder. No one feels entitled but you -- apparently you feel entitled to resent anyone that has more than you. First, it was because you thought their parents bought them their lifestyle, but now that you learned they earned it themselves, you've found another reason to resent it.

Believe it or not, lots of middle class families move to fringe areas, where the rent is cheap, improve the schools, and suddenly find themselves living in desirable, expensive areas because of the work they've done. Why you should feel so angry about that is incomprehensible. You can do it yourself -- there are plenty of inexpensive, safe areas in Brooklyn, Queens, etc. Do it, instead of being mean to people who have done it and in no way feel entitled about it.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 1:58 PM

Score one for the city...

Every kid I know who grew up in the suburbs and is coming of age now, HATED IT! Nothing to do, had to have parents drive you everywhere and way too much tv time and not enough exercise or intellectual or social stimulation.

But who cares what's best for the kids as long as you have your 4000 sf McMansion....right?

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 2:10 PM

1:44 hit a home run. Pefect explanation of why Park Slope does not need pre-K, no matter where the funds come from.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 2:13 PM

Noklissa, I think the data are inconclusive, and "pre-K" covers a wide demographic, so it's hard to control for that, I would imagine. This is why it's so tricky to make broad statements about education, because there are so many variables. What is Pre-K like, in Tennessee, for instance? How much funding does the state kick in? god knows the feds don't, much, these days.

I'm interested in the info about Head Start. Where are they getting these data, and is it just for Tennessee? Common sense would tell you that it is far better for a child to have all the nutritional benefits and stability that Head Start gives poorer kids.

bxgrl -- I think one thing they have established is that childhood development is closely linked to interactions with adults. If you're plunked in front of a TV for hours, whether by a parent or in day care of some sort, you're not going to do as well. So you can't make a hard and fast rule. It may be the parent who's doing the plunking, see what I mean?

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 3:13 PM

11:32 - And to add insult to injury with two kids and a $250,000 income:

St. Anne's - $60,000 tuition + $12,500 city income taxes = $72,500

Public school - $0 tuition + $15,000 property taxes = $15,000, plus free parking.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 4:16 PM

Nokilissa, bxgrl, and others interested in what exactly makes a preK:

I agree with the poster who said that you cannot make a broad statement about preK effectiveness. I would also be careful about judging the entire worth of a program based on standardized test scores.

While I know little about HeadStart (other than that the Republicans have made it a favorite whipping boy) or Georgia preK, I do know that Brooklyn preK (and the private preschools that many here attend prior to that) vary greatly in what they offer their young attendees.

Here in NY, some schools feature progressive, play-based curricula, while others are already overly concerned with ABCs. It is my observation, and that of the progressive educational literature, that children learn best through active, engaged play. PreK, done well, can offer that.

And, back to the original topic of this thread...This variability btw programs at different schools is another reason why people are upset with the DOE about this enrollment mess; spots are NOT interchangeable when the programs differ so greatly.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 9:36 PM

Nokilissa, bxgrl:

The effectiveness of Pre-k is closely correlated to the quality of the pre-k program.

The Georgia initiative for universal pre-k, while well intentioned, was poorly implemented. Teachers were poorly paid and had little or no training in early education.

I highly recommend the documentary "The Promise of Preschool," which looks at the discrepancies in the us system.
http://nieer.org/docs/?DocID=42

Claire-Schools don't have room to physically expand. And finding space for new schools is also difficult. Also, from what I understand, no planning about school capacity was included in all the development going on around the city

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 11:08 PM

I cannot understand why a topic related to a bureaucratic nightmare due to DOE limitations veered slightly towards slamming Private School patronizers.

Private Schools are not the problem. In "desirable" school districts there are more than enough interested and mobilized parents involved - adding more from this demographic would certainly overwhelm the DOE. Ideally, more educated, involveed and confident people with the tools needed to get things done should migrate to the areas with more need. But this doesn't happen because at the end of the day, we all need to get through our day in the community that supports us (whether it's through like minded friends or the overwhelming need to have access to coffee shops and restaurants). A community is not only defined as a 10-20 square block radius, it can be whereever people come together with good feelings and intentions.

I am truly saddened by the Middle schoolers experience and I hope they find an answer that doesn't make them feel as cynical towards the BOE as I am.

Posted by: guest at June 6, 2008 6:57 AM

6:57am, I don't think that many people here are slamming private school patronizers, but just pointing out the reality that unless the middle class uses them, the public schools won't improve. Private schools aren't the problem, but if too many people choose to use them, the public schools just fall apart.

It just seems like you assume the schools were good first and then middle class parents came. That's just not the case. A few middle class parents came, usually as a small group, with the intention of improving middling or poor schools. They worked hard to convince others to also take the chance. This happened in lower-income neighborhoods that the middle class could afford. But a few years later, those pioneers found themselves living in expensive, desirable school zones they could not have afforded. But it does happen that educated and involved people migrate to the areas of need, because that's the way the so called "good" public schools became that way. So, it's not fair just to dismiss that as a possibility.

However, you are 100% right about your lovely description of community and hopefully everyone can find one, however that occurs.

Posted by: guest at June 6, 2008 8:31 AM

There are so many factors involved in the choices made by a given person or group of people. There has been a shift to city living. Certain demographics (white, college educated, with a good % that stay at home - either because they can't make enough to rationalize working or they don't believe in it...) have moved to affordable areas and have contributed significantly to the school to benefit their families and their children - both their own sense of belonging and camraderie and wanting what's best for their children given their resources. It's good that people make different choices based on their lifestyle, needs, wants, etc. Resources would be depleted otherwise and the world would be a lot less interesting. The numbers of said demographic are so high now that I feel that a natural shift will have to occur to private (very limited) and spillover to burbs. This is not new - just amplified because of the current #s. City downturn is complicating things however. Hold the judgements.

Posted by: guest at June 7, 2008 8:49 AM