Skipping PK3 in the fall because of COVID-19

[Anonymous]

I get considering the risks and maybe not wanting to risk it for your child. But if you can pull your kids from PrK without any worries because you are at home or have a nanny or switch to a small private program the free Prk program was not meant for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get considering the risks and maybe not wanting to risk it for your child. But if you can pull your kids from PrK without any worries because you are at home or have a nanny or switch to a small private program the free Prk program was not meant for you.

It’s universal pre-k, with seats distributed via lottery. It’s for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get considering the risks and maybe not wanting to risk it for your child. But if you can pull your kids from PrK without any worries because you are at home or have a nanny or switch to a small private program the free Prk program was not meant for you.

It’s universal pre-k, with seats distributed via lottery. It’s for everyone.

+1. Free pre-K is meant for everyone, and just has the positive side effect of also providing high-quality early childhood education to children who might not otherwise get it. It's like public transit (in non-COVID times) - I COULD have driven to work every day, but I chose to take the taxpayer-subsidized bus because it provides a convenient service to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it depends. Did the person get into their top choice charter? How scared of contracting COVID are they? Young kids especially are significantly more likely to die/ have complications from the flu and schools certainly don't shut down for that.

But those kids don’t kill the grand parents with that flu

[Anonymous]

Keep your spot. There will be virtual options and you’ll have access to the curriculum, videos, teachers, etc. plus your child will be able to virtually meet classmates. I don’t see the reason to unenroll it’s decline a spot when there is a high likelihood of being virtual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get considering the risks and maybe not wanting to risk it for your child. But if you can pull your kids from PrK without any worries because you are at home or have a nanny or switch to a small private program the free Prk program was not meant for you.

It’s universal pre-k, with seats distributed via lottery. It’s for everyone.

No it is a head start income based program. When it started most of the cities students were low income therefore it was reasonable to make the seats available to all. As you may know some wards have no Prk 3, few Prk 4 and they are cutting programs at school where the majority of the students enrolled are not low income. Unfortunately those that can pay are not doing the right thing and paying for private Prk so the few lower income kids at those schools are losing out as well.
DCPS needs to wise up and give low income students the priority and the rest could maybe lottery to the remaining seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get considering the risks and maybe not wanting to risk it for your child. But if you can pull your kids from PrK without any worries because you are at home or have a nanny or switch to a small private program the free Prk program was not meant for you.

It’s universal pre-k, with seats distributed via lottery. It’s for everyone.

+1. Free pre-K is meant for everyone, and just has the positive side effect of also providing high-quality early childhood education to children who might not otherwise get it. It's like public transit (in non-COVID times) - I COULD have driven to work every day, but I chose to take the taxpayer-subsidized bus because it provides a convenient service to me.

Your taxes don't begin to pay for the cost of free Prk. Prk is largely funded through a grant. Which is why losing the most recent grant is a major problem for the long term outlook of the program. Our taxes would need a pretty big raise to fund free prk for all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get considering the risks and maybe not wanting to risk it for your child. But if you can pull your kids from PrK without any worries because you are at home or have a nanny or switch to a small private program the free Prk program was not meant for you.

It’s universal pre-k, with seats distributed via lottery. It’s for everyone.

+1. Free pre-K is meant for everyone, and just has the positive side effect of also providing high-quality early childhood education to children who might not otherwise get it. It's like public transit (in non-COVID times) - I COULD have driven to work every day, but I chose to take the taxpayer-subsidized bus because it provides a convenient service to me.

Your taxes don't begin to pay for the cost of free Prk. Prk is largely funded through a grant. Which is why losing the most recent grant is a major problem for the long term outlook of the program. Our taxes would need a pretty big raise to fund free prk for all!

There are 13,000 children in public prek in DC. The grant supports about 1,100. Taxes are paying for the vast majority of prek seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get considering the risks and maybe not wanting to risk it for your child. But if you can pull your kids from PrK without any worries because you are at home or have a nanny or switch to a small private program the free Prk program was not meant for you.

It’s universal pre-k, with seats distributed via lottery. It’s for everyone.

No it is a head start income based program. When it started most of the cities students were low income therefore it was reasonable to make the seats available to all. As you may know some wards have no Prk 3, few Prk 4 and they are cutting programs at school where the majority of the students enrolled are not low income. Unfortunately those that can pay are not doing the right thing and paying for private Prk so the few lower income kids at those schools are losing out as well.
DCPS needs to wise up and give low income students the priority and the rest could maybe lottery to the remaining seats.

This is complete and total bullshit and the education leaders in the city would tell you that as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get considering the risks and maybe not wanting to risk it for your child. But if you can pull your kids from PrK without any worries because you are at home or have a nanny or switch to a small private program the free Prk program was not meant for you.

It’s universal pre-k, with seats distributed via lottery. It’s for everyone.

+1. Free pre-K is meant for everyone, and just has the positive side effect of also providing high-quality early childhood education to children who might not otherwise get it. It's like public transit (in non-COVID times) - I COULD have driven to work every day, but I chose to take the taxpayer-subsidized bus because it provides a convenient service to me.

Good analogy. Public transit, like free PK, really only works well if a wide range of people from different socioeconomic backgrounds take it.

Both services bring a city together by creating shared experiences and getting everyone invested in the same stuff.

Having all wealthy people send kids to private school while poorer people go to public is a recipe for disastrous schools and community, just as having all wealthy people drive while poor people take transit— in both cases schools and transit not used by the wealthy get little political support and end up failing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get considering the risks and maybe not wanting to risk it for your child. But if you can pull your kids from PrK without any worries because you are at home or have a nanny or switch to a small private program the free Prk program was not meant for you.

It’s universal pre-k, with seats distributed via lottery. It’s for everyone.

+1. Free pre-K is meant for everyone, and just has the positive side effect of also providing high-quality early childhood education to children who might not otherwise get it. It's like public transit (in non-COVID times) - I COULD have driven to work every day, but I chose to take the taxpayer-subsidized bus because it provides a convenient service to me.

Your taxes don't begin to pay for the cost of free Prk. Prk is largely funded through a grant. Which is why losing the most recent grant is a major problem for the long term outlook of the program. Our taxes would need a pretty big raise to fund free prk for all!

If only the feds gave DC our fair share of taxes we’d have enough to support our schools. (Don’t listen to the numbers from Heritage and Manhattan that say DC isn’t getting screwed by the feds— we get very little back compared to all other states.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get considering the risks and maybe not wanting to risk it for your child. But if you can pull your kids from PrK without any worries because you are at home or have a nanny or switch to a small private program the free Prk program was not meant for you.

It’s universal pre-k, with seats distributed via lottery. It’s for everyone.

+1. Free pre-K is meant for everyone, and just has the positive side effect of also providing high-quality early childhood education to children who might not otherwise get it. It's like public transit (in non-COVID times) - I COULD have driven to work every day, but I chose to take the taxpayer-subsidized bus because it provides a convenient service to me.

Good analogy. Public transit, like free PK, really only works well if a wide range of people from different socioeconomic backgrounds take it.

Both services bring a city together by creating shared experiences and getting everyone invested in the same stuff.

Having all wealthy people send kids to private school while poorer people go to public is a recipe for disastrous schools and community, just as having all wealthy people drive while poor people take transit— in both cases schools and transit not used by the wealthy get little political support and end up failing.

+1000. See Medicare and Social Security. Everyone gets them, so they get broad political support. And with respect to public transit, I remember when growing up in NYC, the (relatively) rich and the poor were cheek by jowl on the subway, sharing space, sharing at least that experience. It's at least a little slice of experience that tends to contribute to a democratic sensibility. In many other cities, only poor people take public transit, so the people with the political capital (i.e., richer people in their cars) never see them on a more or less equal footing (i.e., the poor people are only the people who serve them in restaurants, etc.). Same with schools.