How was Hearst Last Year

[Anonymous]

OP, what is your question? Good or bad what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to my knowledge there was never a 'cap' on the K class sizes related to NAEYC. there has been a deliberate effort to keep PK classes at 19 or 20 and every year we've been at the school - coming up on 4 now - that has been the case.

NAEYC accreditation does require 20 or fewer students. However, I do not believe Hearst has current accreditation as of the last school year, so they would not be obliged to keep to classes that small.

interesting. parent leading tour a couple months back said they were accredited and cited it as one reason they make the PK have a nap time, which I think they said carries into the first months of K. They also cited the 20 kids for PK and K. Maybe someone at the school could chime in?

Family at school. Whoever said that was mistaken. Accreditation lapsed and NAEYC wouldn't redo while renovation was in process. We will see about in future. PK kids in all schools have nap time available, and I'm sure some time in K too. I highly doubt that nap has anything to do with NAEYC. Still great school, just not for that reason.

When did the accreditation lapse? Given the frequency in which the accreditation was mentioned as a selling point for the school it's strange that it was not more robustly communicated to current parents.

It's not any big conspiracy. All schools that are NAEYC accredited have to be re-certified on a regular basis. I believe because of the renovation process they could not check every box appropriately so they will just re-certify once the construction is done. They maintain all of the other criteria, including rest time in kindergarten. If a parent volunteer provided that information on the tour they just may not have known what was up because nothing changed in the way that the classes are run. They still follow all of the NAEYC principles.

It's kind of a big deal for parents who want their kids in small classes in the early grades. And, hate to bring up a bad subject, but this is not the first time that some bad info has been shared on a Hearst school tour that has later turned out to be inaccurate (see the PS3 issue at Hearst). But its not just the parent volunteer that had it wrong. It's currently on the school's FB page:

"Our Pre-K through 5th grade school in Northwest Washington is the only DC public school with Pre-K and Kindergarten programs accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)."

Be nice if somebody in an official capacity could speak to the issue.

You are correct. It is still on the Facebook page. There is no trace of it on the school's DCPS or own website, open house promotional materials, mailers, etc, but someone did not update the Facebook page. I'm sure that someone will fix that now.

[Anonymous]

Again, what is OP's question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hearst IB family. Very happy with the school and had great year. New principal is very good. Our teachers have been fantastic. Very excited about new building. Of course, nothing is every perfect, but do feel like the school, which was already great, is getting even better.

I would stress that the improvement is not because IB families are choosing the school. We are happy that our neighbors are realizing they have one of the best schools in the city in their backyard, and are seeing real signs that the number and percentage of IB families are enrolling especially at younger grades. But *all* current families are contributing to the improvement (and staff huge part too!). The OOB families at Hearst are very energetic and involved; and moreover, are an integral part of the community.

It may be impolitic to say, but metrics improvements in upper NW schools usually have everything to do with how many IB students are choosing the schools. Do you really think that Janney and Mann are inherently so much better than Hearst or Eaton? Of course not, but they have much higher percentages of students from advantaged, higher SES families.

[Anonymous]

So in the absence of the accreditation, is there a commitment by the principal to keep PK and K capped at 20 students? That is the key question.

[Anonymous]

i think they pk4 classes are capped, not so sure about K. Maybe you should email the principal?

[Anonymous]

PK4 has to be capped at 20 students in every DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So in the absence of the accreditation, is there a commitment by the principal to keep PK and K capped at 20 students? That is the key question.

+1. Another test for the principal. Based on the lack of engagement and communication of PS3 at Hearst, people should not be confident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst IB family. Very happy with the school and had great year. New principal is very good. Our teachers have been fantastic. Very excited about new building. Of course, nothing is every perfect, but do feel like the school, which was already great, is getting even better.

I would stress that the improvement is not because IB families are choosing the school. We are happy that our neighbors are realizing they have one of the best schools in the city in their backyard, and are seeing real signs that the number and percentage of IB families are enrolling especially at younger grades. But *all* current families are contributing to the improvement (and staff huge part too!). The OOB families at Hearst are very energetic and involved; and moreover, are an integral part of the community.

It may be impolitic to say, but metrics improvements in upper NW schools usually have everything to do with how many IB students are choosing the schools. Do you really think that Janney and Mann are inherently so much better than Hearst or Eaton? Of course not, but they have much higher percentages of students from advantaged, higher SES families.

Since I don't agree that they are better period, it follows that it has very little to do with the IB/OOB split. I do agree that a school's success has in part to do with engaged families, and Hearst has those in spades, both IB and OOB. Of course, we are thrilled when IB families recognize the value of the school and choose it. But that doesn't mean that we view OOB families as somehow inferior, which is what you, consciously or not, seem to be implying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst IB family. Very happy with the school and had great year. New principal is very good. Our teachers have been fantastic. Very excited about new building. Of course, nothing is every perfect, but do feel like the school, which was already great, is getting even better.

I would stress that the improvement is not because IB families are choosing the school. We are happy that our neighbors are realizing they have one of the best schools in the city in their backyard, and are seeing real signs that the number and percentage of IB families are enrolling especially at younger grades. But *all* current families are contributing to the improvement (and staff huge part too!). The OOB families at Hearst are very energetic and involved; and moreover, are an integral part of the community.

It may be impolitic to say, but metrics improvements in upper NW schools usually have everything to do with how many IB students are choosing the schools. Do you really think that Janney and Mann are inherently so much better than Hearst or Eaton? Of course not, but they have much higher percentages of students from advantaged, higher SES families.

Since I don't agree that they are better period, it follows that it has very little to do with the IB/OOB split. I do agree that a school's success has in part to do with engaged families, and Hearst has those in spades, both IB and OOB. Of course, we are thrilled when IB families recognize the value of the school and choose it. But that doesn't mean that we view OOB families as somehow inferior, which is what you, consciously or not, seem to be implying.

"Hearst has those in spades"?! Not exactly the best choice of words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So in the absence of the accreditation, is there a commitment by the principal to keep PK and K capped at 20 students? That is the key question.

+1. Another test for the principal. Based on the lack of engagement and communication of PS3 at Hearst, people should not be confident.

EVERY DCPS school has to keep PK4 at no more than 20. It is not a test for the principal at all. As for K, you cannot have it both ways. If IB families want to come, the school cannot, should not, and doesn't want to refuse them. But doing so, means that the numbers have to go up, just like they do at Janney, Murch, etc..

I just don't get this poster. What did the principal do to you? Or I can believe that you are incredibly disappointed that you didn't get PK3 and have to pay another year of daycare, but don't take that out on the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst IB family. Very happy with the school and had great year. New principal is very good. Our teachers have been fantastic. Very excited about new building. Of course, nothing is every perfect, but do feel like the school, which was already great, is getting even better.

I would stress that the improvement is not because IB families are choosing the school. We are happy that our neighbors are realizing they have one of the best schools in the city in their backyard, and are seeing real signs that the number and percentage of IB families are enrolling especially at younger grades. But *all* current families are contributing to the improvement (and staff huge part too!). The OOB families at Hearst are very energetic and involved; and moreover, are an integral part of the community.

It may be impolitic to say, but metrics improvements in upper NW schools usually have everything to do with how many IB students are choosing the schools. Do you really think that Janney and Mann are inherently so much better than Hearst or Eaton? Of course not, but they have much higher percentages of students from advantaged, higher SES families.

Since I don't agree that they are better period, it follows that it has very little to do with the IB/OOB split. I do agree that a school's success has in part to do with engaged families, and Hearst has those in spades, both IB and OOB. Of course, we are thrilled when IB families recognize the value of the school and choose it. But that doesn't mean that we view OOB families as somehow inferior, which is what you, consciously or not, seem to be implying.

"Hearst has those in spades"?! Not exactly the best choice of words.

Get a life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No need to feed the troll. We all know that this particular poster has a very specific perspective that we have heard MANY times before.

It makes one wonder if those who try to shut down this issue are themselves non-DC resident fraudsters who are afraid of exposure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So in the absence of the accreditation, is there a commitment by the principal to keep PK and K capped at 20 students? That is the key question.

+1. Another test for the principal. Based on the lack of engagement and communication of PS3 at Hearst, people should not be confident.

EVERY DCPS school has to keep PK4 at no more than 20. It is not a test for the principal at all. As for K, you cannot have it both ways. If IB families want to come, the school cannot, should not, and doesn't want to refuse them. But doing so, means that the numbers have to go up, just like they do at Janney, Murch, etc..

I just don't get this poster. What did the principal do to you? Or I can believe that you are incredibly disappointed that you didn't get PK3 and have to pay another year of daycare, but don't take that out on the school.

You don't get it? Current and future Hearst parents don't want overcrowded K classrooms (i.e. greater than 20) because the principal let's in too many OOB students. What's difficult about understanding that? Janney and Murch have overcrowded classrooms because of an explosion of IB families, but it has been that way for years and that is what the parents signed up for. Don't use the unique circumstances of Janney and Murch to justify an absurd result at Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

EVERY DCPS school has to keep PK4 at no more than 20. It is not a test for the principal at all. As for K, you cannot have it both ways. If IB families want to come, the school cannot, should not, and doesn't want to refuse them. But doing so, means that the numbers have to go up, just like they do at Janney, Murch, etc..

I just don't get this poster. What did the principal do to you? Or I can believe that you are incredibly disappointed that you didn't get PK3 and have to pay another year of daycare, but don't take that out on the school.

+1 Some of the "over-crowding" is sort of inevitable as a school becomes more popular and more families move IB after pK (or choose to enter the school at K rather than pK). If IB families entered at pK and stayed through there wouldn't be as much overcrowding. But even if a school wanted to keep upper grade (non-pk4) classes around 20, if a bunch of IB families enter after pK they can't do anything about it.