Head Start next year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the schools mentioned (e.g., Langdon, Langley, Burroughs) *may* have enough affluent ECE families that the school's ECE program should no longer qualify for Head Start. But, at these schools, in particular, there is a very low proportion of affluent kids in grades K - 5. I've been trying to think about whether removing Head Start at those schools will have a negative impact on the school's over all quality or progress. For instance, if a school does not have Head Start, the economically disadvantaged kids in ECE may not receive the same services they would have under Head Start, setting them up for more difficulties in later grades and creating a student body that is less positioned to learn and grow.

Another negative consequence of losing Head Start might be that affluent families--whose kids tend to score better on standardized tests, and who can more easily donate time and/or money to the school--will be less inclined to send their kids to the school.

To me (not that it matters!), it's worth considering these negative consequences of losing Head Start in the schools where there is a high proportion of economically disadvantaged K - 5 students, even if ECE is affluent.

The same thing applies to Marie Reed ES. PreK and K are affluent but the rest of the school is not.

I don't understand where everyone goes. There are jot enough empty seats at higher demand charters or dcps school for all theses Prk to just bailout. Are that many folks really flipping to private?? If so they can afford to stay in private for Prk.

Are more low income families keep their kids at home? How are K+ schools staying full in the upper grade but jot completely full with low income from the start?

The lottery does need to be written for low income to get 25% or more of each grade to have priority for low income.

If you are lucky, you got a charter spot.
If you are not, you move to WOTP for the elementary schools, go private, or move to the suburbs.
You would be surprised how many families move to the burbs.

The poor performing DCPS schools are under-enrolled. This is across the board with elementary, middle, and high school.
While the stronger schools are way overcrowded. Look at all the schools WOTP.

The low performing schools are not underenrolled for preschool though. Even Langley with its awful test scores took hardly any OOB non-siblings for PK3, despite adding a classroom. They have to be farther east and way worse to not fill up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the schools mentioned (e.g., Langdon, Langley, Burroughs) *may* have enough affluent ECE families that the school's ECE program should no longer qualify for Head Start. But, at these schools, in particular, there is a very low proportion of affluent kids in grades K - 5. I've been trying to think about whether removing Head Start at those schools will have a negative impact on the school's over all quality or progress. For instance, if a school does not have Head Start, the economically disadvantaged kids in ECE may not receive the same services they would have under Head Start, setting them up for more difficulties in later grades and creating a student body that is less positioned to learn and grow.

Another negative consequence of losing Head Start might be that affluent families--whose kids tend to score better on standardized tests, and who can more easily donate time and/or money to the school--will be less inclined to send their kids to the school.

To me (not that it matters!), it's worth considering these negative consequences of losing Head Start in the schools where there is a high proportion of economically disadvantaged K - 5 students, even if ECE is affluent.

The same thing applies to Marie Reed ES. PreK and K are affluent but the rest of the school is not.

I don't understand where everyone goes. There are jot enough empty seats at higher demand charters or dcps school for all theses Prk to just bailout. Are that many folks really flipping to private?? If so they can afford to stay in private for Prk.

Are more low income families keep their kids at home? How are K+ schools staying full in the upper grade but jot completely full with low income from the start?

The lottery does need to be written for low income to get 25% or more of each grade to have priority for low income.

If you are lucky, you got a charter spot.
If you are not, you move to WOTP for the elementary schools, go private, or move to the suburbs.
You would be surprised how many families move to the burbs.

The poor performing DCPS schools are under-enrolled. This is across the board with elementary, middle, and high school.
While the stronger schools are way overcrowded. Look at all the schools WOTP.

No middle class families can afford WOTP. I would not want to move WOTP even if we could. I have the lack of good metro and lack of actual diversity.
We are a middle class maybe on the low end of it for DC family struggling like many to keep a quality of life in the city. Moving to the suburbs won't really give any better opportunity as the "better" school are in places with super high housing costs.

[Anonymous]

The city and the mayor said they would keep free Prk in the city throughout dcps. So, they need to do whatever is needed to achieve that.. Be it a slightly higher taxes or a special education tax. He!!, those speed cameras could probably put a dent it thw cost. But of course they also need to then actually make sure building are kept up, money is spent correctly and stop all this waste. Maybe now that she has a kid she will care enough to keep Prk in the city.
True is was started for low income but it has become a draw for lots of families to start out and stay. If they drop it young families won't come to the city as quickly or stay. But the the suburbs housing costs will go up.. So idk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the schools mentioned (e.g., Langdon, Langley, Burroughs) *may* have enough affluent ECE families that the school's ECE program should no longer qualify for Head Start. But, at these schools, in particular, there is a very low proportion of affluent kids in grades K - 5. I've been trying to think about whether removing Head Start at those schools will have a negative impact on the school's over all quality or progress. For instance, if a school does not have Head Start, the economically disadvantaged kids in ECE may not receive the same services they would have under Head Start, setting them up for more difficulties in later grades and creating a student body that is less positioned to learn and grow.

Another negative consequence of losing Head Start might be that affluent families--whose kids tend to score better on standardized tests, and who can more easily donate time and/or money to the school--will be less inclined to send their kids to the school.

To me (not that it matters!), it's worth considering these negative consequences of losing Head Start in the schools where there is a high proportion of economically disadvantaged K - 5 students, even if ECE is affluent.

The same thing applies to Marie Reed ES. PreK and K are affluent but the rest of the school is not.

I don't understand where everyone goes. There are jot enough empty seats at higher demand charters or dcps school for all theses Prk to just bailout. Are that many folks really flipping to private?? If so they can afford to stay in private for Prk.

Are more low income families keep their kids at home? How are K+ schools staying full in the upper grade but jot completely full with low income from the start?

The lottery does need to be written for low income to get 25% or more of each grade to have priority for low income.

If you are lucky, you got a charter spot.
If you are not, you move to WOTP for the elementary schools, go private, or move to the suburbs.
You would be surprised how many families move to the burbs.

The poor performing DCPS schools are under-enrolled. This is across the board with elementary, middle, and high school.
While the stronger schools are way overcrowded. Look at all the schools WOTP.

The low performing schools are not underenrolled for preschool though. Even Langley with its awful test scores took hardly any OOB non-siblings for PK3, despite adding a classroom. They have to be farther east and way worse to not fill up.

Well of course, everyone knows that because middle class families want free ECE although the program wasn’t meant for them.

But they all leave after and so yes the schools as a whole is under-enrolled and will continue to be so.

[Anonymous]

The principal at my Title I school shared that an email was received from Central Office stating that details about the grant situation will be shared after winter break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The city and the mayor said they would keep free Prk in the city throughout dcps. So, they need to do whatever is needed to achieve that.. Be it a slightly higher taxes or a special education tax. He!!, those speed cameras could probably put a dent it thw cost. But of course they also need to then actually make sure building are kept up, money is spent correctly and stop all this waste. Maybe now that she has a kid she will care enough to keep Prk in the city.
True is was started for low income but it has become a draw for lots of families to start out and stay. If they drop it young families won't come to the city as quickly or stay. But the the suburbs housing costs will go up.. So idk.

Great- so the feds are cutting funding to DC.
DC already gets by FAR the least federal money per capita relative to how much we pay in in taxes.

Each person in DC pays an average of 30k to the feds after all federal payments back to DC are factored in.
The next lowest state is New Jersey at about 5k paid in. Most states are net takers from the feds.

It is ludicrous that DC subsidizes the federal government so heavily. Either give us more education money or make us a state or both.
Taxation without representation, indeed.

[Anonymous]

Also this thread is a great example of how means-tested programs lead to sniping and form-filling.

We should have universal PreK throughout DC (and throughout the country). Instead, DC and HHS each have to pay hundreds of thousands in salaries to administer a grant program, and now people are fighting about who should have free PK.

EVERYONE should have free PK. There is plenty of money in our economy to pay for it. The problem is that rightwing billionaires pay lower taxes on their ill-gotten gains (usually via monopolistic or politically corrupt practices) than your average at-risk family. We should be fighting with the conservative billionaires starving our schools, led by Betsy DeVos, not fighting amongst ourselves about which kids deserve pre-K. All kids deserve pre-K. This is a talent-based and education-based economy.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think that Head Start will completely eliminate the program at some of the DCPS elementary schools. The problem with the way DCPS calculates eligibility is that they currently only look at families using SNAP and TANF. The policy council person at my school said that DCPS recently launched an income verification pilot at about 11 schools to see which families would qualify based on income. I believe that Bancroft and Bruce Monroe were two of the schools chosen to participate in the pilot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also this thread is a great example of how means-tested programs lead to sniping and form-filling.

We should have universal PreK throughout DC (and throughout the country). Instead, DC and HHS each have to pay hundreds of thousands in salaries to administer a grant program, and now people are fighting about who should have free PK.

EVERYONE should have free PK. There is plenty of money in our economy to pay for it. The problem is that rightwing billionaires pay lower taxes on their ill-gotten gains (usually via monopolistic or politically corrupt practices) than your average at-risk family. We should be fighting with the conservative billionaires starving our schools, led by Betsy DeVos, not fighting amongst ourselves about which kids deserve pre-K. All kids deserve pre-K. This is a talent-based and education-based economy.

Hate to break it to you but free preK throughout the country is an unrealistic, ideology. People want lots of free things but someone is going to have to pay for it. Studies show preK can make a difference in poor, low SES families. In middle class families not so much.

So yes, head start was based on accurate data that preK would benefit poor families. That is who should get free or subsidized preK. Not you or me who don’t fit that socioeconomic status. Middle class families in DC are just benefitting from a program currently not meant for them. Head start has a right to pull funding from preK programs in DC who don’t have majority low income families.

[Anonymous]

The 400 richest people in this country own approximately half the wealth and pay a lower tax rate than the poorest working parent at a title I school.

And we pissed away several trillion dollars in Iraq on a fools errand that enriched Dick Cheney and Erik Prince.

This is a rich country. I’d like it to stay that way, and so I want our workforce to remain highly educated and our universities and creative industries to remain world-beating.

Rightwing billionaires don’t care if they crush the country and everyone in it as long as they can pay politicians and use monopoly power to hoard all the profit in the economy.

Free PK is the bare minimum we should be fighting for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 400 richest people in this country own approximately half the wealth and pay a lower tax rate than the poorest working parent at a title I school.

And we pissed away several trillion dollars in Iraq on a fools errand that enriched Dick Cheney and Erik Prince.

This is a rich country. I’d like it to stay that way, and so I want our workforce to remain highly educated and our universities and creative industries to remain world-beating.

Rightwing billionaires don’t care if they crush the country and everyone in it as long as they can pay politicians and use monopoly power to hoard all the profit in the economy.

Free PK is the bare minimum we should be fighting for.

Totally disagree. Free preK has a low return on investment.

If there is 1 thing in education we should focus on - it’s to pay teachers much more and give the profession a lot more respect. That’s how other countries are doing so much better in education than us. It’s not free preK.

[Anonymous]

Here look, there’s a story published this week about how we pissed away $107 billion in Afghanistan, on schools made with glass atriums that the locals literally couldn’t open because they had never seen the doorknobs before. And the schools sat empty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-corruption-government/

The whole DC education budget, charter and DCPS, is less than three billion per year. Depending on how you calculate the wasted money in Afghanistan (the 40% estimated to be lit on fire by corruption, or the 60% actually spent on the empty schools), you could double the DC ed budget and provide amazing STEM education at Wilson and new middle schools for Shaw and beef up the PK and avoid the coming budget crunch and attract the best teachers available, for 12 years or for 30 years. Just on Afghanistan alone, and on that one contracting initiative.

We just waged two wars that, to be very frank, were useless wastes of money and our kids’ lives. Imagine if we had spent that money on education.

[Anonymous]

The principal at my school informed us that we were on the list of schools that definitely will not be receiving Head Start next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 400 richest people in this country own approximately half the wealth and pay a lower tax rate than the poorest working parent at a title I school.

And we pissed away several trillion dollars in Iraq on a fools errand that enriched Dick Cheney and Erik Prince.

This is a rich country. I’d like it to stay that way, and so I want our workforce to remain highly educated and our universities and creative industries to remain world-beating.

Rightwing billionaires don’t care if they crush the country and everyone in it as long as they can pay politicians and use monopoly power to hoard all the profit in the economy.

Free PK is the bare minimum we should be fighting for.

Totally disagree. Free preK has a low return on investment.

Citation for this?
If there is 1 thing in education we should focus on - it’s to pay teachers much more and give the profession a lot more respect. That’s how other countries are doing so much better in education than us. It’s not free preK.

[Anonymous]

All families will receive a letter explaining the situation with the grant this Friday.