Head Start next year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DEFINITELY NOT POSTER NEEDS TO PROVIDE RECEIPTS OR I CALL BULLSHIT

All schools will be notified in the next few weeks about the status of the Head Start grant and the reduction in support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the schools with under 35% Head Start eligible students will be cut. Schools falling between 35-50% will also probably be cut.

So does it specifically look at "Head Start eligible students" in ECE only, or school-wide? Thinking of schools like Miner (and Payne to a slightly lesser extent) - ECE is full of higher incomes, but they bounce out by K.

Miner is about 50-50 in PK3 and slightly more by PK4. If 50% is a hard cut off, I would guess that they'd just sneak in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The schools outside of Ward 7 and 8 that will probably have it will most likely include the schools below.

Walker Jones EC
Wheatley EC
Browne EC
LaSalle Backus
Langdon
Noyes
Brightwood
Tubman
Raymond EC
Dorothy Height
Cleveland (50/50 chance given the location of the school and the TFI of the neighborhood)
Truesdell EC

What about Langley? At 49% at-risk I would be surprised if they cut it. PK3 is showing some gentrification but PK4 and K are still predominately low-income.

I would be surprised if they pull back from Langley, given the large special ed program and the Connected Schools thing. Maybe in a few years but as PP said, Pk4 is still pretty low income-y. Seems like retention of high-SES kids is still poor.

SN programs are not funded by Head Start. It is partially funded by IDEA, and the District has to make up the rest. Further, for Head Start purposes, the income of Pk3 and Pk4 is relevant. Retention of high-SES kids is not relevant (it is relevant to Title 1 designation).

Poor retention of high-SES kids is the reason PK3 is so much more gentrified than PK4 and K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the schools with under 35% Head Start eligible students will be cut. Schools falling between 35-50% will also probably be cut.

So does it specifically look at "Head Start eligible students" in ECE only, or school-wide? Thinking of schools like Miner (and Payne to a slightly lesser extent) - ECE is full of higher incomes, but they bounce out by K.

Miner is about 50-50 in PK3 and slightly more by PK4. If 50% is a hard cut off, I would guess that they'd just sneak in.

Miner is actually in the low 40’s. Miner or JO Wilson will not be sneaking in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the schools with under 35% Head Start eligible students will be cut. Schools falling between 35-50% will also probably be cut.

So does it specifically look at "Head Start eligible students" in ECE only, or school-wide? Thinking of schools like Miner (and Payne to a slightly lesser extent) - ECE is full of higher incomes, but they bounce out by K.

Miner is about 50-50 in PK3 and slightly more by PK4. If 50% is a hard cut off, I would guess that they'd just sneak in.

Miner is actually in the low 40’s. Miner or JO Wilson will not be sneaking in.

Really? Interesting. JO Wilson is considerably more gentrified than Miner, so that doesn't surprise me.

[Anonymous]

Miner is actually in the low 40’s. Miner or JO Wilson will not be sneaking in.

Is this data public? And if so, where?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All schools in wards 7 and 8 will have it along with a few other schools. Overall the total number of schools will be anywhere between 33-38 schools.

Schools that definitely will NOT have Head Start.

Ludlow Taylor
Van Ness
West
Payne
Thomson
Garrison
Marie Reed
Bancroft
Powell

Would Garrison lose it, but not Seaton or Langley? Where is this information coming from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All schools in wards 7 and 8 will have it along with a few other schools. Overall the total number of schools will be anywhere between 33-38 schools.

Schools that definitely will NOT have Head Start.

Ludlow Taylor
Van Ness
West
Payne
Thomson
Garrison
Marie Reed
Bancroft
Powell

Would Garrison lose it, but not Seaton or Langley? Where is this information coming from?

Langley's at-risk percentage was 49% last year, much higher than Seaton or Garrison. It has some gentrification in Pk3 this year but a lot less in Pk4 due to poor retention. Also it has a self-contained special ed preschool class which is almost entirely low-income.

[Anonymous]

Technically, since most of the materials and furnishings at the schools losing Head Start were purchased using Head Start funds, DCPS will have to send these items back to Head start. This will essentially strip a lot of these classrooms of 85-90% of their furnishings and materials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Technically, since most of the materials and furnishings at the schools losing Head Start were purchased using Head Start funds, DCPS will have to send these items back to Head start. This will essentially strip a lot of these classrooms of 85-90% of their furnishings and materials.

Citation for this? I find it hard to bvelieve that HHS is going to reposess desks and bookcases without at least allowing DCPS to purchase it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically, since most of the materials and furnishings at the schools losing Head Start were purchased using Head Start funds, DCPS will have to send these items back to Head start. This will essentially strip a lot of these classrooms of 85-90% of their furnishings and materials.

Citation for this? I find it hard to bvelieve that HHS is going to reposess desks and bookcases without at least allowing DCPS to purchase it.

Why would Head Start allow schools to keep furnishings that were purchased with funds to support Head Start? Every single item needs to be accounted for and returned.

[Anonymous]

This is about to cost DCPS a lot to refurbish ECE classrooms at 23-25 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically, since most of the materials and furnishings at the schools losing Head Start were purchased using Head Start funds, DCPS will have to send these items back to Head start. This will essentially strip a lot of these classrooms of 85-90% of their furnishings and materials.

Citation for this? I find it hard to bvelieve that HHS is going to reposess desks and bookcases without at least allowing DCPS to purchase it.

Why would Head Start allow schools to keep furnishings that were purchased with funds to support Head Start? Every single item needs to be accounted for and returned.

Because Head Start is a jointly funded program in DC. The federal government pays most, but not all of the cost. Also - where the heck would it be sent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why would Head Start allow schools to keep furnishings that were purchased with funds to support Head Start? Every single item needs to be accounted for and returned.

If the funding was misused or fraud was involved this would make sense, but that's not the case. The schools are no longer eligible for additional funding, but are entitled to keep the furniture and materials purchased during the period of eligibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why would Head Start allow schools to keep furnishings that were purchased with funds to support Head Start? Every single item needs to be accounted for and returned.

If the funding was misused or fraud was involved this would make sense, but that's not the case. The schools are no longer eligible for additional funding, but are entitled to keep the furniture and materials purchased during the period of eligibility.

Not exactly, Head Start will want all of its materials returned. The items will be sent to other sites supporting Head Start.