Are we fools not to play lottery for our 3 y o?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But I reject the false assumption that parents who send their kids to public preschool only do so because they want free care for their kids.

Absolutely never intended to imply that, which is why I put in in quotes. Although there are many DCUM posters and parents who freely admit that is what they are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess we will agree to disagree. Your premise is that the most disadvantaged families are using the OOB and charter lotteries successfully at the PS3 level. I'm not sure how to measure that. I would think that their choices are primarily driven by transportation, but I am certainly not an expert.

I guess I will have to become an expert, though, when I open up my awesome K-entry charter school!

No. My prise is that the majority of ALL filies who use public pre-s and pre-k are underserved families and that it would do undue harm tk make them re-lottery where the majority would stay put where they are, wherever that is. And the other fact IM basing my conclusion on is that by definition, if you can choose whethef or not your kid attends public preschool, or not, you are almost definitely in a SES that does not represent the target population. There are exceptions, but most are not underserved if it's about choosing not to go. Dont miss the part of my premise that says its unjust and obnoxious to propose making a cgange that disadvantages the majority target population to advantage the few who don't have to send their kids.

[Anonymous]

Typos above = posting while in transit. My premise is that families... Not prise and filies...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am very much not a troll and I agree that there is a lot of entitlement on this thread. First, this is a poor city that had for many years extremely poor citizens. The city designed the free PS and PK as an offshoot of Head Start to provide free early education to kids whose parents can't afford it. It's great that you would prefer to have your child spend time with a nanny or you and only attend preschool part time. Then do that. But it is entitled to demand that the city offer you the free preschool that you want in addition to the free preschool that the city believes the poor children of this city need. Second, the problem that people seem to have really stems from your own decision to live in a neighborhood that does not offer a school that you find acceptable. Living here requires trade offs. If you choose to live in the biggest house you can afford in a transitional neighborhood then you have to play the lottery and take the full day PS and PK. If you want to pick your preschool and still have a guaranteed K then you will have to move to a neighborhood that allows that.

It's not entitlement to expect that you can send your kids to a decent public school. We pay taxes into that system. We did not buy "the biggest house we could afford in a transitional neighborhood." We bought a very small 90 year old house in a very modest neighborhood that actually costs us less than renting in one of those better neighborhoods. Your contention seems to be that if you want access to a decent school you should just pay the premium to live in the right neighborhood - the very OPPOSITE of how the public school system should function. People like you are part of the problem. I am a taxpayer and I am decidedly not entitled. Your assertion that "living here requires tradeoffs" might be true but your attitude and your worldview are complete bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: ... This would give people the all-day care they need for 3's and 4's without all the stress of trying to pick a philosophy, a language, a feeder program and a commute they could live with forever at such an early age.

Yes, the kids would likely change schools for K, but that has historically been the case when kids transitioned from preschool to kindergarten. And I say this as a Stokes parent who did get lucky in the lottery, but would have liked to keep my daughter home another year without losing our spot.

This is an important point that I have seen is that it is not "all day care" - it is a full day of school. DC is trying to do something to close the performance gap - and because it does not work for you and your snowflake, you want new rules.

Children from low-SES families often begin kindergarten with significantly less linguistic knowledge. DC tried to do something about this and are providing these children (and the rest of the DC residents) the opportunity to have a quality PreS and PreK programs.

They're letting wealthy kids compete with head start kids for spots that were previously income based. The wealthier kids come from families with two working parents. The working families are working but there is a recognition that working families can't easily afford all-day childcare. This is as much to make it easier on them than on the poor kids. Especially since the poor kids now have to share the program with the middle and wealthy class kids whose parents could pay for it otherwise.

I have to disagree with this, at least at my charter. Many of the low-income families only have one working parent or have family members and friends who take care of their kids. Out of 25 kids in DS's class, only about 10 show up for before-care and it's less than that for aftercare. School ends at 3pm and by the time I get there to pickup at 4:30, there's only about 5 kids left. So clearly, those kids have someone available to care for them outside of school hours. We have no family and friends here to rely on for this. We are two working parents, but we are by no means wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that it is absolutely wonderful that enough progress has been made in elementary education in DC that people are even having this discussion. To those of us who have been here watching and helping this movement, congratulations. To those who are just joining in and seeing new things that they would like to improve, welcome and I hope you can create the options that you want, but please try to give a little bit of credit to what has been done so far recently before you bad mouth what is here.

Oh come on!

I'll give you a ton of credit for creating options that work for your family, but that's it. Do not have the nerve to think that the situation you've helped to create works for every family. And do not think that the "improvements" you've made to the system don't have unintended consequences to other families. There are some good in-bounds schools now (not near me) and there are more and more charters competing with them for other kids, presenting other options (none attractive to me). Just because YOU think it is better because you've created an option that works for YOU does not mean it is inherently better.

To my mind, there is little in this world more dysfunctional than this city's school and charter and OOB system. It would be easier to improve the local in-bounds when the current families don't have a free alternative there is more incentive to stick with and fix the local schools. I love that the charter system has done exactly what all of us public school boosters said it would do, leaving fewer engaged families willing to give the local school their elbow grease.

So - thanks for that?

I somewhat agree with this. My East of the Park hood has a growing number of young, professional families but no one will send their child to our IB school. I've talked to some folks to try and convince them that we could make a difference if we band together but - nope. Everyone has gone lottery, many have gone charter or parochial/private, and I just can't plop my kid there as the lone test subject and do all the heavy lifting of agitating for change and improvements on my own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was the charter parent who proposed the startover lottery at K. Let me reiterate that I am IN the system at a desirable charter school, so this is not a selfish proposal on my part. I agree strongly with the "stressed" poster (who I think had a reasonable reaction to the turn that the thread was taking) that there should be options that:

1) provide PS3 and PS4 for low-income and working families
2) AND provide a reasonable entry point for K families

I never suggested that we screw over "working class families who need PS and PK. What I suggested was that we provide a reasonable entry point for K families that don't require people to force their kids in at 3. A K lottery would mean that the big "do or die" year for the lottery would be K instead of PS3 and PS4. What would be the big deal about that? Everyone could send their kid to Appletree or their local Ludlow-Taylor or Miner or whatever works for them in PS3 and PK4, and then start the lottery for their "forever" schools at K.

This would eliminate the crush at PS3 since there seem to be more than a few of us who'd like to keep their kids home that year and push the lottery to K, which is already a year in which there is a ton of movement as families leave the city for the suburbs, move their kids to private schools, or leave their daycare for their inbounds schools.

The only people who would be "losers" in this group, would be people like me, whose kids already lotteried into a coveted charter or OOB school. I think we all agree that this is small group.

I understand where you are coming from, and that might work in some schools, but it would not work in our charter at all. It would disadvantage the entire school. As an immersion school, it is importatnt that the children begin as early as possible and continue in that lanugage for as long as possible. It would bve very difficlut to commit to using and learning a language for just the preschool years without it extending further; it would be a huge wasted effort for all the children involved.

Moreover, schools are communities that thrive at least partially on the investment of the parents into that community. Parents of younger children tend to be more invested and more involved, at every income level. Getting these parents involved early is imperitive for establishing a community of support. I know that I am extraordinarily invested in my child's school, as are many of the other parents. The investment is far, far greater than at our paid daycare because we know that this is a long-term project that we will all be involved with. To cut that off at the knees by having to repeat the lottery would hurt every single student, every single teacher, and the school as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am very much not a troll and I agree that there is a lot of entitlement on this thread. First, this is a poor city that had for many years extremely poor citizens. The city designed the free PS and PK as an offshoot of Head Start to provide free early education to kids whose parents can't afford it. It's great that you would prefer to have your child spend time with a nanny or you and only attend preschool part time. Then do that. But it is entitled to demand that the city offer you the free preschool that you want in addition to the free preschool that the city believes the poor children of this city need. Second, the problem that people seem to have really stems from your own decision to live in a neighborhood that does not offer a school that you find acceptable. Living here requires trade offs. If you choose to live in the biggest house you can afford in a transitional neighborhood then you have to play the lottery and take the full day PS and PK. If you want to pick your preschool and still have a guaranteed K then you will have to move to a neighborhood that allows that.

It's not entitlement to expect that you can send your kids to a decent public school. We pay taxes into that system. We did not buy "the biggest house we could afford in a transitional neighborhood." We bought a very small 90 year old house in a very modest neighborhood that actually costs us less than renting in one of those better neighborhoods. Your contention seems to be that if you want access to a decent school you should just pay the premium to live in the right neighborhood - the very OPPOSITE of how the public school system should function. People like you are part of the problem. I am a taxpayer and I am decidedly not entitled. Your assertion that "living here requires tradeoffs" might be true but your attitude and your worldview are complete bullshit.

I actually didn't say that at all. Everyone has the right to a decent school and if your IB school doesn't offer that (as mine does not) you can get that through the OOB and charter lotteries. The trade off is that you have your best chance at a spot at the entry year and you might not want to start school then. If you want to skip preschool and still go to a good K-5 program (which I in no way limit to certain WOTP schools) you are most likely going to have to move into one of their catchment areas. Thats another trade off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I understand where you are coming from, and that might work in some schools, but it would not work in our charter at all. It would disadvantage the entire school. As an immersion school, it is importatnt that the children begin as early as possible and continue in that lanugage for as long as possible. It would bve very difficlut to commit to using and learning a language for just the preschool years without it extending further; it would be a huge wasted effort for all the children involved.

Moreover, schools are communities that thrive at least partially on the investment of the parents into that community. Parents of younger children tend to be more invested and more involved, at every income level. Getting these parents involved early is imperitive for establishing a community of support. I know that I am extraordinarily invested in my child's school, as are many of the other parents. The investment is far, far greater than at our paid daycare because we know that this is a long-term project that we will all be involved with. To cut that off at the knees by having to repeat the lottery would hurt every single student, every single teacher, and the school as a whole.

I agree that language immersion and Montessori present a particular challenge, but nearly every school, even the language immersion charters, accept students at K. The idea that you can only be invested in a school if you start the school at PS3 or PK4 is completely false. Are the schools that start at PK4 less invested than those that start at PS3? Of course not. Nearly every elementary school in the nation begins at kindergarten. DC has created a unique culture that engages students at a very young age, but that is not the only model for success.

[Anonymous]

I always thought the reason people kept their kids out of the three-year-old class was because they weren't reliably potty trained. I guess their parents should buy a house in a better catchment area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess we will agree to disagree. Your premise is that the most disadvantaged families are using the OOB and charter lotteries successfully at the PS3 level. I'm not sure how to measure that. I would think that their choices are primarily driven by transportation, but I am certainly not an expert.

I guess I will have to become an expert, though, when I open up my awesome K-entry charter school!

No. My prise is that the majority of ALL filies who use public pre-s and pre-k are underserved families and that it would do undue harm tk make them re-lottery where the majority would stay put where they are, wherever that is. And the other fact IM basing my conclusion on is that by definition, if you can choose whethef or not your kid attends public preschool, or not, you are almost definitely in a SES that does not represent the target population. There are exceptions, but most are not underserved if it's about choosing not to go. Dont miss the part of my premise that says its unjust and obnoxious to propose making a cgange that disadvantages the majority target population to advantage the few who don't have to send their kids.

NP here - pp, you make some very valid points, all of which are undercut by your inability to post without insulting the person to whom you are responding. I for one would be a lot more willing to consider your point of view if just addressed the points without the unnecessary commentary, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

[Anonymous]

What if DCPS opened up some awesome PS3 and PK4 ONLY campuses? Let's stop attaching these early elementary programs onto existing programs and get some programs that are specifically designed for little kids. They can have individual foci, of course, but would be good for all kids. We could have some language immersion (Spanish would cover the most ground and set up the ones who go onto immersion K), Montessori, which is really good for little kids but not all parents love it for primary, and Tools of the Mind campuses. Take the non-potty trained ones, too, and bring them into the fold. No more bullying by big kids because there won't be any big kids.

My point is, let's never stop looking to broaden access and do better. Just because the current system works for some doesn't mean we can't think outside the box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care so much whether your child naps at home or at school? That is the real difference between part-time and full-day school.

My three year old does not nap. I don't want every day or full time. So your comment is not germane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess we will agree to disagree. Your premise is that the most disadvantaged families are using the OOB and charter lotteries successfully at the PS3 level. I'm not sure how to measure that. I would think that their choices are primarily driven by transportation, but I am certainly not an expert.

I guess I will have to become an expert, though, when I open up my awesome K-entry charter school!

No. My prise is that the majority of ALL filies who use public pre-s and pre-k are underserved families and that it would do undue harm tk make them re-lottery where the majority would stay put where they are, wherever that is. And the other fact IM basing my conclusion on is that by definition, if you can choose whethef or not your kid attends public preschool, or not, you are almost definitely in a SES that does not represent the target population. There are exceptions, but most are not underserved if it's about choosing not to go. Dont miss the part of my premise that says its unjust and obnoxious to propose making a cgange that disadvantages the majority target population to advantage the few who don't have to send their kids.

NP here - pp, you make some very valid points, all of which are undercut by your inability to post without insulting the person to whom you are responding. I for one would be a lot more willing to consider your point of view if just addressed the points without the unnecessary commentary, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Please be more specific: which part of this post is "unnecessary commentary"? The issues of entitlement and who this benefits have been raised already, so which part of my post does not go straight to the heart of why this is about entitlement and who it disadvantages? I appreciate that you are being honest and saying you want to consider what I'm saying, but I don't understand what part of what I said you consider "unnecessary commentary"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with your ^^ frame of this PP is that the majority of families this was set up for would be greatly disrupted and disadvantaged if the lottery year became K. It would be disrupting the majority to better serve the advantaged much smaller % and it stinks. You are using great PR language to make it sound like 1) it would only inconvenience a few and 2) it would be great for most. Utter bullshit. It would way disproportionately hurt the majority of the families it was set up to serve by disrupting them and making them do 2 lotteries... All to allow privileged families like yours and mine to have better choices.

Spraying nice-smelling language over it doesn't change that bottom line, and it's eloquent privileged people like you who keep cheating the underserved out of the resources intended for them once those resources actually start to improve. Framing your proposal as if hardly anyone wpuld be harmed is a real example of that.

This is really funny. You are calling someone already in the system that she'd be cheating (herself, I guess?) out of the system. The other person you're blasting as a "privileged family" like yours makes 60K a year. That's some funny shit. The problem is that the charter school system in DC mostly helps students who least need the help. It's the struggling DCPS that need our time and attention. The preschools at those schools were initially set up to help the at risk kids. Then the wealthier families wanted access to the preschools so they lifted the income restrictions. You are some kind of piece of work that you're trying to somehow argue that allowing you to continue competing against poor kids for the few spots open at preschools is actually better for the disadvantaged. The system is built on a landfill, okay? and the bridges and safety nets are serving you and people like you. They're not serving the vast majority of kids in this city, and they're certainly not serving the struggling schools in ward 5, 7, 8, and the kids in bounds for them.