What does a typical day as a principal in Title I DCPS school look like?

[Anonymous]

I’m curious, what does a typical day as a principal look like at a real DCPS Title I school look like? I don’t want to hear about the experiences at barely Title I schools like Payne, John Lewis, Garrison, Marie Reed, etc. I’m talking about the real Title I schools in DC.

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand the distinction between “real” and “unreal” Title 1 schools. Can you be more specific?

[Anonymous]

Mine rarely left the office except for when observations needed to be done. One year observations were the only time they set foot in my classroom (so three times) and other years I never saw them in my room. They had a lot of DCPS meetings, both in person and virtual. They would attend PTA meetings and LSAT meetings, sometimes cover lunch duty or arrival duty. But day to day functioning of the school was mostly left up to the AP who was always in the hallway and frequently stopped in my classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the distinction between “real” and “unreal” Title 1 schools. Can you be more specific?

Job Lewis has 29% of kids at risk, Beers has 69% -yet they are both ‘title 1.’ One is obviously more difficult to work at than the other. Yet the funding is the same and the bonus for teachers and admin is as well.

[Anonymous]

I get it: some schools have significantly higher percentages of at risk kids. So almost 1 in 3 children being at risk isn’t a “real” Title 1 to you. What is the minimum percentage to qualify as “real” to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get it: some schools have significantly higher percentages of at risk kids. So almost 1 in 3 children being at risk isn’t a “real” Title 1 to you. What is the minimum percentage to qualify as “real” to you?

No, because it falls below the 40% Title I threshold. Schools like John Lewis, Marie Reed and Garrison don’t need Title I funds any longer. Those funds should be given to schools in wards 7 and 8 where there is a real need. It would make things much more easier for the principals at those schools. And lots of affluent parents at schools like John Lewis constantly tout that they are at a Title I school, but the numbers of black children attending the school plummets every year. They only love the extra money coming into the school, but not the children and families who make the school eligible for Title I. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it: some schools have significantly higher percentages of at risk kids. So almost 1 in 3 children being at risk isn’t a “real” Title 1 to you. What is the minimum percentage to qualify as “real” to you?

No, because it falls below the 40% Title I threshold. Schools like John Lewis, Marie Reed and Garrison don’t need Title I funds any longer. Those funds should be given to schools in wards 7 and 8 where there is a real need. It would make things much more easier for the principals at those schools. And lots of affluent parents at schools like John Lewis constantly tout that they are at a Title I school, but the numbers of black children attending the school plummets every year. They only love the extra money coming into the school, but not the children and families who make the school eligible for Title I. Period.

What is the loophole that allows schools below the 40% threshold to keep their title 1 status?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it: some schools have significantly higher percentages of at risk kids. So almost 1 in 3 children being at risk isn’t a “real” Title 1 to you. What is the minimum percentage to qualify as “real” to you?

No, because it falls below the 40% Title I threshold. Schools like John Lewis, Marie Reed and Garrison don’t need Title I funds any longer. Those funds should be given to schools in wards 7 and 8 where there is a real need. It would make things much more easier for the principals at those schools. And lots of affluent parents at schools like John Lewis constantly tout that they are at a Title I school, but the numbers of black children attending the school plummets every year. They only love the extra money coming into the school, but not the children and families who make the school eligible for Title I. Period.

What is the loophole that allows schools below the 40% threshold to keep their title 1 status?

There is no loophole. PP is conflating "at-risk" (a local DC legal term) with the poverty indicator used by U.S. Ed (and therefore OSSE) to determine Title I status. While there is a huge amount of overlap in these two categories, they are slightly different and you can qualify as a student in poverty under the Title I definition without qualifying as "at-risk".

You can see the 3 ways a student can qualify for free/reduced lunch (these are the students that determine Title I funding) on DCPS' site. https://dcps.dc.gov/farm

The first two categories would also qualify the student as "at-risk" (SNAP/TANF, foster care, homeless). However, not all students that qualify for free/reduced lunch under "income eligibility" would be "at-risk".

[Anonymous]

I am not sure that it is really tons easier to administratively do well at a more socioeconomically diverse title 1. You will have kids working at a lot of different ability levels. You will have sometimes difficult parents. You will have behavior issues in upper elementary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it: some schools have significantly higher percentages of at risk kids. So almost 1 in 3 children being at risk isn’t a “real” Title 1 to you. What is the minimum percentage to qualify as “real” to you?

No, because it falls below the 40% Title I threshold. Schools like John Lewis, Marie Reed and Garrison don’t need Title I funds any longer. Those funds should be given to schools in wards 7 and 8 where there is a real need. It would make things much more easier for the principals at those schools. And lots of affluent parents at schools like John Lewis constantly tout that they are at a Title I school, but the numbers of black children attending the school plummets every year. They only love the extra money coming into the school, but not the children and families who make the school eligible for Title I. Period.

What is the loophole that allows schools below the 40% threshold to keep their title 1 status?

There is no loophole. PP is conflating "at-risk" (a local DC legal term) with the poverty indicator used by U.S. Ed (and therefore OSSE) to determine Title I status. While there is a huge amount of overlap in these two categories, they are slightly different and you can qualify as a student in poverty under the Title I definition without qualifying as "at-risk".

You can see the 3 ways a student can qualify for free/reduced lunch (these are the students that determine Title I funding) on DCPS' site. https://dcps.dc.gov/farm

The first two categories would also qualify the student as "at-risk" (SNAP/TANF, foster care, homeless). However, not all students that qualify for free/reduced lunch under "income eligibility" would be "at-risk".

Lol idk about this year but you are wrong. I work at one of those schools and got a 10k bonus, that is ONLY available at title 1 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it: some schools have significantly higher percentages of at risk kids. So almost 1 in 3 children being at risk isn’t a “real” Title 1 to you. What is the minimum percentage to qualify as “real” to you?

No, because it falls below the 40% Title I threshold. Schools like John Lewis, Marie Reed and Garrison don’t need Title I funds any longer. Those funds should be given to schools in wards 7 and 8 where there is a real need. It would make things much more easier for the principals at those schools. And lots of affluent parents at schools like John Lewis constantly tout that they are at a Title I school, but the numbers of black children attending the school plummets every year. They only love the extra money coming into the school, but not the children and families who make the school eligible for Title I. Period.

What is the loophole that allows schools below the 40% threshold to keep their title 1 status?

There is no loophole. PP is conflating "at-risk" (a local DC legal term) with the poverty indicator used by U.S. Ed (and therefore OSSE) to determine Title I status. While there is a huge amount of overlap in these two categories, they are slightly different and you can qualify as a student in poverty under the Title I definition without qualifying as "at-risk".

You can see the 3 ways a student can qualify for free/reduced lunch (these are the students that determine Title I funding) on DCPS' site. https://dcps.dc.gov/farm

The first two categories would also qualify the student as "at-risk" (SNAP/TANF, foster care, homeless). However, not all students that qualify for free/reduced lunch under "income eligibility" would be "at-risk".

The at risk indicator is used to determine Title I status because children who qualify for SNAP and TANF are considered direct certified. Federal Title I guidelines also allows school districts to multiple their direct certified student population by 1.6 to account for other students who are economically disadvantaged but the families did not submit forms. This is why schools like Marie Reed, Payne, and John Lewis are still able to qualify for Title I.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure that it is really tons easier to administratively do well at a more socioeconomically diverse title 1. You will have kids working at a lot of different ability levels. You will have sometimes difficult parents. You will have behavior issues in upper elementary school.

+1

I think there are difficulties either way. My child attends a Title 1 school that has attracted more UMC families in recent years. The principal has changed their messaging and tone on certain policies recently because some UMC families were overly vocal and demanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it: some schools have significantly higher percentages of at risk kids. So almost 1 in 3 children being at risk isn’t a “real” Title 1 to you. What is the minimum percentage to qualify as “real” to you?

No, because it falls below the 40% Title I threshold. Schools like John Lewis, Marie Reed and Garrison don’t need Title I funds any longer. Those funds should be given to schools in wards 7 and 8 where there is a real need. It would make things much more easier for the principals at those schools. And lots of affluent parents at schools like John Lewis constantly tout that they are at a Title I school, but the numbers of black children attending the school plummets every year. They only love the extra money coming into the school, but not the children and families who make the school eligible for Title I. Period.

What is the loophole that allows schools below the 40% threshold to keep their title 1 status?

There is no loophole. PP is conflating "at-risk" (a local DC legal term) with the poverty indicator used by U.S. Ed (and therefore OSSE) to determine Title I status. While there is a huge amount of overlap in these two categories, they are slightly different and you can qualify as a student in poverty under the Title I definition without qualifying as "at-risk".

You can see the 3 ways a student can qualify for free/reduced lunch (these are the students that determine Title I funding) on DCPS' site. https://dcps.dc.gov/farm

The first two categories would also qualify the student as "at-risk" (SNAP/TANF, foster care, homeless). However, not all students that qualify for free/reduced lunch under "income eligibility" would be "at-risk".

Lol idk about this year but you are wrong. I work at one of those schools and got a 10k bonus, that is ONLY available at title 1 schools.

But not all of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it: some schools have significantly higher percentages of at risk kids. So almost 1 in 3 children being at risk isn’t a “real” Title 1 to you. What is the minimum percentage to qualify as “real” to you?

No, because it falls below the 40% Title I threshold. Schools like John Lewis, Marie Reed and Garrison don’t need Title I funds any longer. Those funds should be given to schools in wards 7 and 8 where there is a real need. It would make things much more easier for the principals at those schools. And lots of affluent parents at schools like John Lewis constantly tout that they are at a Title I school, but the numbers of black children attending the school plummets every year. They only love the extra money coming into the school, but not the children and families who make the school eligible for Title I. Period.

What is the loophole that allows schools below the 40% threshold to keep their title 1 status?

There is no loophole. PP is conflating "at-risk" (a local DC legal term) with the poverty indicator used by U.S. Ed (and therefore OSSE) to determine Title I status. While there is a huge amount of overlap in these two categories, they are slightly different and you can qualify as a student in poverty under the Title I definition without qualifying as "at-risk".

You can see the 3 ways a student can qualify for free/reduced lunch (these are the students that determine Title I funding) on DCPS' site. https://dcps.dc.gov/farm

The first two categories would also qualify the student as "at-risk" (SNAP/TANF, foster care, homeless). However, not all students that qualify for free/reduced lunch under "income eligibility" would be "at-risk".

Lol idk about this year but you are wrong. I work at one of those schools and got a 10k bonus, that is ONLY available at title 1 schools.

But not all of them.

Yes, it is available at all title 1 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure that it is really tons easier to administratively do well at a more socioeconomically diverse title 1. You will have kids working at a lot of different ability levels. You will have sometimes difficult parents. You will have behavior issues in upper elementary school.

+1

I think there are difficulties either way. My child attends a Title 1 school that has attracted more UMC families in recent years. The principal has changed their messaging and tone on certain policies recently because some UMC families were overly vocal and demanding.

We are at a similar school mentioned earlier on the thread. The kids who need title 1 funding really need it. But the popular principal talks a lot about being diverse but caters to the loud UMC parents. I liked the school more several years ago. It better served my child and kids who qualified for title 1 resources. I know this because I am floater staff in the school.