Head Start next year?

[Anonymous]

My god. This is hilarious. All these parents at schools who are losing Head Start trying to justify that head start has no value.

You guys all sound desperate and pathetic really.

Head Start is a great program that has proven results. Fact. Your subjective opinions don’t matter a whole lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I’ve heard Head Start grants provides a school with:

Teaching training or coaching (debatable quality); materials; and what else?

Family services support, student mental health support, professional development for teachers, GOLD support, And CLASS training.

What does family services support, student mental health services mean exactly/look like? And are these things needed for middle and upper middle class student?

Also I have no idea what GOLD is? And I’m not convinced that so many diff forms of prof dev/training are needed. Is there overlap or duplication?

GOLD is Teaching Strategies' (Creative Curriculum) assessment/observation/lesson planning system.
CLASS is a research-based tool that is used to score teacher-child interactions and OSSE uses it to rate schools.

Interestingly, GOLD doesn't seem to be implemented at my kid's current T1 losing T1 school; I only noticed because it was very much used at my kid's true T1 last year.

And that explains why the CLASS scores at Ludlow Taylor have been consistently bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My god. This is hilarious. All these parents at schools who are losing Head Start trying to justify that head start has no value.

You guys all sound desperate and pathetic really.

Head Start is a great program that has proven results. Fact. Your subjective opinions don’t matter a whole lot.

+100 They sounds extremely pathetic. I guess decades of research is useless because a couple of affluent parents said so. Thanks for the laugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My god. This is hilarious. All these parents at schools who are losing Head Start trying to justify that head start has no value.

You guys all sound desperate and pathetic really.

Head Start is a great program that has proven results. Fact. Your subjective opinions don’t matter a whole lot.

I’m just not sure what services Head Start provides. No one has provided and specifics of things that they would lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god. This is hilarious. All these parents at schools who are losing Head Start trying to justify that head start has no value.

You guys all sound desperate and pathetic really.

Head Start is a great program that has proven results. Fact. Your subjective opinions don’t matter a whole lot.

I’m just not sure what services Head Start provides. No one has provided and specifics of things that they would lose.

You would have to ask your school specifically. They are given money from the head start program to implement a curriculum that would meet their early learning outcomes framework.

Potential areas could be:

1. Teacher education in regards to outcome goals

2. Teacher training and development in such areas as below:
a. Early childhood development, teaching, and learning
b. Early childhood health and wellness
c. Parent, family, and community engagement

3. Curriculum materials

4. Testing materials and childhood quality outcomes

5. Classroom equipments, supplies

6. Social services such as social worker, mental health providers, community liaisons

7. Health and dental screenings


Those are some things that come to mind. I’m sure there are many more. But bottom line is they provide much needed services to schools that lack the resources for these things above.

The schools will lose a lot of money. They will have to cut or severely decrease whatever services above. It will drive down quality and educational outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My god. This is hilarious. All these parents at schools who are losing Head Start trying to justify that head start has no value.

You guys all sound desperate and pathetic really.

Head Start is a great program that has proven results. Fact. Your subjective opinions don’t matter a whole lot.

It’s pretty fun to watch conservatives troll DCUM by trying to stir up anger about losing Head Start. Then turning it into a racial thing, trying to get white and minority families to fight. And now they’re attacking us for saying some schools can afford to lose Head Start.

Just don’t give in to the jealous conservative trolls.

DC is an amazing and vibrant city with excellent values and a hard working, diverse populace. Conservatives hate us because they ain’t us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god. This is hilarious. All these parents at schools who are losing Head Start trying to justify that head start has no value.

You guys all sound desperate and pathetic really.

Head Start is a great program that has proven results. Fact. Your subjective opinions don’t matter a whole lot.

I’m just not sure what services Head Start provides. No one has provided and specifics of things that they would lose.

You would have to ask your school specifically. They are given money from the head start program to implement a curriculum that would meet their early learning outcomes framework.

Potential areas could be:

1. Teacher education in regards to outcome goals

2. Teacher training and development in such areas as below:
a. Early childhood development, teaching, and learning
b. Early childhood health and wellness
c. Parent, family, and community engagement

3. Curriculum materials

4. Testing materials and childhood quality outcomes

5. Classroom equipments, supplies

6. Social services such as social worker, mental health providers, community liaisons

7. Health and dental screenings


Those are some things that come to mind. I’m sure there are many more. But bottom line is they provide much needed services to schools that lack the resources for these things above.

The schools will lose a lot of money. They will have to cut or severely decrease whatever services above. It will drive down quality and educational outcomes.

If you look at the budget which varies by school but it’s anywhere from $130k-200k per school. Not small change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god. This is hilarious. All these parents at schools who are losing Head Start trying to justify that head start has no value.

You guys all sound desperate and pathetic really.

Head Start is a great program that has proven results. Fact. Your subjective opinions don’t matter a whole lot.

I’m just not sure what services Head Start provides. No one has provided and specifics of things that they would lose.

You would have to ask your school specifically. They are given money from the head start program to implement a curriculum that would meet their early learning outcomes framework.

Potential areas could be:

1. Teacher education in regards to outcome goals

2. Teacher training and development in such areas as below:
a. Early childhood development, teaching, and learning
b. Early childhood health and wellness
c. Parent, family, and community engagement

3. Curriculum materials

4. Testing materials and childhood quality outcomes

5. Classroom equipments, supplies

6. Social services such as social worker, mental health providers, community liaisons

7. Health and dental screenings


Those are some things that come to mind. I’m sure there are many more. But bottom line is they provide much needed services to schools that lack the resources for these things above.

The schools will lose a lot of money. They will have to cut or severely decrease whatever services above. It will drive down quality and educational outcomes.

If you look at the budget which varies by school but it’s anywhere from $130k-200k per school. Not small change.

Error between 130k-250k plus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ I have a question about that, actually. LT’s Principal is acting as though the school is going straight from T1 to not even targeted assistance. Is it really possible the school’s demographics shifted that much in a year or am I misunderstanding?

Very possible the PK population has shifted that much, which is all that counts for Head Start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god. This is hilarious. All these parents at schools who are losing Head Start trying to justify that head start has no value.

You guys all sound desperate and pathetic really.

Head Start is a great program that has proven results. Fact. Your subjective opinions don’t matter a whole lot.

I’m just not sure what services Head Start provides. No one has provided and specifics of things that they would lose.

You would have to ask your school specifically. They are given money from the head start program to implement a curriculum that would meet their early learning outcomes framework.

Potential areas could be:

1. Teacher education in regards to outcome goals

2. Teacher training and development in such areas as below:
a. Early childhood development, teaching, and learning
b. Early childhood health and wellness
c. Parent, family, and community engagement

3. Curriculum materials

4. Testing materials and childhood quality outcomes

5. Classroom equipments, supplies

6. Social services such as social worker, mental health providers, community liaisons

7. Health and dental screenings


Those are some things that come to mind. I’m sure there are many more. But bottom line is they provide much needed services to schools that lack the resources for these things above.

The schools will lose a lot of money. They will have to cut or severely decrease whatever services above. It will drive down quality and educational outcomes.

If you look at the budget which varies by school but it’s anywhere from $130k-200k per school. Not small change.

Error between 130k-250k plus

Ok but if it is a middle class school they probably don't need extra funds for family engagement support, at school health and dental screenings (still available to zero cost to residents, just not at school), and once a teacher has been trained in the outcomes, does it really need to happen every year? Is the ECE teacher turnover that high?

And the schools that receive targetted assistance can still provide the things on the list above that are most critical. I really do not get the hysteria here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god. This is hilarious. All these parents at schools who are losing Head Start trying to justify that head start has no value.

You guys all sound desperate and pathetic really.

Head Start is a great program that has proven results. Fact. Your subjective opinions don’t matter a whole lot.

I’m just not sure what services Head Start provides. No one has provided and specifics of things that they would lose.

You would have to ask your school specifically. They are given money from the head start program to implement a curriculum that would meet their early learning outcomes framework.

Potential areas could be:

1. Teacher education in regards to outcome goals

2. Teacher training and development in such areas as below:
a. Early childhood development, teaching, and learning
b. Early childhood health and wellness
c. Parent, family, and community engagement

3. Curriculum materials

4. Testing materials and childhood quality outcomes

5. Classroom equipments, supplies

6. Social services such as social worker, mental health providers, community liaisons

7. Health and dental screenings


Those are some things that come to mind. I’m sure there are many more. But bottom line is they provide much needed services to schools that lack the resources for these things above.

The schools will lose a lot of money. They will have to cut or severely decrease whatever services above. It will drive down quality and educational outcomes.

If you look at the budget which varies by school but it’s anywhere from $130k-200k per school. Not small change.

Error between 130k-250k plus

Ok but if it is a middle class school they probably don't need extra funds for family engagement support, at school health and dental screenings (still available to zero cost to residents, just not at school), and once a teacher has been trained in the outcomes, does it really need to happen every year? Is the ECE teacher turnover that high?

And the schools that receive targetted assistance can still provide the things on the list above that are most critical. I really do not get the hysteria here.

So your point is that teachers don’t need ongoing professional development. Or that they don’t need support with GOLD Teaching Strategies' (assessment/observation/lesson planning), or CLASS. Or that a school doesn’t need 200k plus in funds to support curriculum and material.

I suggest you ask your school principal if they think that money is critical. I already know the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god. This is hilarious. All these parents at schools who are losing Head Start trying to justify that head start has no value.

You guys all sound desperate and pathetic really.

Head Start is a great program that has proven results. Fact. Your subjective opinions don’t matter a whole lot.

I’m just not sure what services Head Start provides. No one has provided and specifics of things that they would lose.

You would have to ask your school specifically. They are given money from the head start program to implement a curriculum that would meet their early learning outcomes framework.

Potential areas could be:

1. Teacher education in regards to outcome goals

2. Teacher training and development in such areas as below:
a. Early childhood development, teaching, and learning
b. Early childhood health and wellness
c. Parent, family, and community engagement

3. Curriculum materials

4. Testing materials and childhood quality outcomes

5. Classroom equipments, supplies

6. Social services such as social worker, mental health providers, community liaisons

7. Health and dental screenings


Those are some things that come to mind. I’m sure there are many more. But bottom line is they provide much needed services to schools that lack the resources for these things above.

The schools will lose a lot of money. They will have to cut or severely decrease whatever services above. It will drive down quality and educational outcomes.

If you look at the budget which varies by school but it’s anywhere from $130k-200k per school. Not small change.

Error between 130k-250k plus

Ok but if it is a middle class school they probably don't need extra funds for family engagement support, at school health and dental screenings (still available to zero cost to residents, just not at school), and once a teacher has been trained in the outcomes, does it really need to happen every year? Is the ECE teacher turnover that high?

And the schools that receive targetted assistance can still provide the things on the list above that are most critical. I really do not get the hysteria here.

Uh no, the schools losing title 1 is not middle class. The ECE might be more than 40% low SES or middle class but the school as a whole is far from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ I have a question about that, actually. LT’s Principal is acting as though the school is going straight from T1 to not even targeted assistance. Is it really possible the school’s demographics shifted that much in a year or am I misunderstanding?

Very possible the PK population has shifted that much, which is all that counts for Head Start.

I wasn't talking about HS here at all. T1 is a separate thing that takes into account the whole school's population. LT's PK population has long looked far from what HS was intended for. (I would guess <10% FARMS eligible.)

LT is losing T1 next year entirely (confirmed) and are losing HS (confirmed).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god. This is hilarious. All these parents at schools who are losing Head Start trying to justify that head start has no value.

You guys all sound desperate and pathetic really.

Head Start is a great program that has proven results. Fact. Your subjective opinions don’t matter a whole lot.

I’m just not sure what services Head Start provides. No one has provided and specifics of things that they would lose.

You would have to ask your school specifically. They are given money from the head start program to implement a curriculum that would meet their early learning outcomes framework.

Potential areas could be:

1. Teacher education in regards to outcome goals

2. Teacher training and development in such areas as below:
a. Early childhood development, teaching, and learning
b. Early childhood health and wellness
c. Parent, family, and community engagement

3. Curriculum materials

4. Testing materials and childhood quality outcomes

5. Classroom equipments, supplies

6. Social services such as social worker, mental health providers, community liaisons

7. Health and dental screenings


Those are some things that come to mind. I’m sure there are many more. But bottom line is they provide much needed services to schools that lack the resources for these things above.

The schools will lose a lot of money. They will have to cut or severely decrease whatever services above. It will drive down quality and educational outcomes.

If you look at the budget which varies by school but it’s anywhere from $130k-200k per school. Not small change.

Error between 130k-250k plus

Ok but if it is a middle class school they probably don't need extra funds for family engagement support, at school health and dental screenings (still available to zero cost to residents, just not at school), and once a teacher has been trained in the outcomes, does it really need to happen every year? Is the ECE teacher turnover that high?

And the schools that receive targetted assistance can still provide the things on the list above that are most critical. I really do not get the hysteria here.

Uh no, the schools losing title 1 is not middle class. The ECE might be more than 40% low SES or middle class but the school as a whole is far from it.

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. The only school losing T1 this year is LT. LT's PK is probably 75%+ solidly UMC; I'd guess 10% FARMS eligible at most. The school as a whole is more diverse -- which is great -- but still pretty solidly middle class+ overall. (Last year's at risk percentage was 30% and that was with 40% FARMS eligible; looks like this year's FARMS eligible is sub 35%, so I would guess at risk is sub 25%. The PTA raises ~$75K and that's w/ no suggested donation, no fundraising for the first month+ of school so new families can settle in, and only one pay to attend event w/ free tickets for teachers + any parents who ask. All of this screams middle class+ school to me.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god. This is hilarious. All these parents at schools who are losing Head Start trying to justify that head start has no value.

You guys all sound desperate and pathetic really.

Head Start is a great program that has proven results. Fact. Your subjective opinions don’t matter a whole lot.

I’m just not sure what services Head Start provides. No one has provided and specifics of things that they would lose.

You would have to ask your school specifically. They are given money from the head start program to implement a curriculum that would meet their early learning outcomes framework.

Potential areas could be:

1. Teacher education in regards to outcome goals

2. Teacher training and development in such areas as below:
a. Early childhood development, teaching, and learning
b. Early childhood health and wellness
c. Parent, family, and community engagement

3. Curriculum materials

4. Testing materials and childhood quality outcomes

5. Classroom equipments, supplies

6. Social services such as social worker, mental health providers, community liaisons

7. Health and dental screenings


Those are some things that come to mind. I’m sure there are many more. But bottom line is they provide much needed services to schools that lack the resources for these things above.

The schools will lose a lot of money. They will have to cut or severely decrease whatever services above. It will drive down quality and educational outcomes.

If you look at the budget which varies by school but it’s anywhere from $130k-200k per school. Not small change.

Error between 130k-250k plus

Ok but if it is a middle class school they probably don't need extra funds for family engagement support, at school health and dental screenings (still available to zero cost to residents, just not at school), and once a teacher has been trained in the outcomes, does it really need to happen every year? Is the ECE teacher turnover that high?

And the schools that receive targetted assistance can still provide the things on the list above that are most critical. I really do not get the hysteria here.

So your point is that teachers don’t need ongoing professional development. Or that they don’t need support with GOLD Teaching Strategies' (assessment/observation/lesson planning), or CLASS. Or that a school doesn’t need 200k plus in funds to support curriculum and material.

I suggest you ask your school principal if they think that money is critical. I already know the answer.

Of course they need professional development, etc. Do they need it paid for by a head start grant, or should DCPS pay for it. This is a thread about Head Start redistribution. If DCPS wants to make ECE available to all, it needs to figure out how to pay for it for non-Head Start kids out of its per pupil allocation, the same as charters do.