Lafayette- the good, the great, the bad, the ugly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These poor kids--now their pictures and their moms' full names are on the news and everybody knows their parents didn't think they could succeed in kindergarten. For parents who appear very invested in their kids having every advantage, this seems strange--wouldn't you want your kid to have privacy about their learning or behavioral challenges?

There’s a handful of Lafayette families who love running to the media. I don’t think they realize that it just makes them look unreasonable (and agree, wtf would you have your kids on there).

Especially since one of those kids looks like a first-grader already, in my opinion. Having that kid in K next year would really stand out! There will be kindergartners who will be 4 until over a month into the school year. These kids would start the year at 6 and may turn 7 soon after.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These poor kids--now their pictures and their moms' full names are on the news and everybody knows their parents didn't think they could succeed in kindergarten. For parents who appear very invested in their kids having every advantage, this seems strange--wouldn't you want your kid to have privacy about their learning or behavioral challenges?

There’s a handful of Lafayette families who love running to the media. I don’t think they realize that it just makes them look unreasonable (and agree, wtf would you have your kids on there).

Especially since one of those kids looks like a first-grader already, in my opinion. Having that kid in K next year would really stand out! There will be kindergartners who will be 4 until over a month into the school year. These kids would start the year at 6 and may turn 7 soon after.

What is the likelihood that the same people trying to redshirt their kids also complain about the lack of academic rigor in dcps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These poor kids--now their pictures and their moms' full names are on the news and everybody knows their parents didn't think they could succeed in kindergarten. For parents who appear very invested in their kids having every advantage, this seems strange--wouldn't you want your kid to have privacy about their learning or behavioral challenges?

There’s a handful of Lafayette families who love running to the media. I don’t think they realize that it just makes them look unreasonable (and agree, wtf would you have your kids on there).

Especially since one of those kids looks like a first-grader already, in my opinion. Having that kid in K next year would really stand out! There will be kindergartners who will be 4 until over a month into the school year. These kids would start the year at 6 and may turn 7 soon after.

What is the likelihood that the same people trying to redshirt their kids also complain about the lack of academic rigor in dcps?

The venn diagram is a perfect circle

[Anonymous]

Why do you people care so much? These parents are just trying to do the right thing for their kids. You sound bitter and self righteous and obnoxious. MYOB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you people care so much? These parents are just trying to do the right thing for their kids. You sound bitter and self righteous and obnoxious. MYOB.

Again, do you know about ethical behavior? It means we are all agreeing to abide by certain rules. Rules apply to everyone. "No one is above the law." It's not that hard, but some upper NW moms just deeply don't understand it.

[Anonymous]

The OP of this thread has a kid who's going into kindergarten next year. Whether these three kids will be enrolled in her child's grade or first affects class size. Also, elsewhere in DCPS it's expected that the rules on enrollment are applied strictly so OP's kid is unlikely to be in class with kids a year+ older. Apparently that hasn't been the case at Lafayette, which is useful info.

Also, if the parents of the redshirted 3 wanted to keep their business out of public discussion, they didn't have to call WJLA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you people care so much? These parents are just trying to do the right thing for their kids. You sound bitter and self righteous and obnoxious. MYOB.

I mean, it’s in the news and all over school-specific social media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you people care so much? These parents are just trying to do the right thing for their kids. You sound bitter and self righteous and obnoxious. MYOB.

Kids who are a year older than their grade are eligible for equitable access preference in the high school lottery regardless of household income https://www.myschooldc.org/faq/key-terms#preference so letting these parents have their way now could keep three actual poor kids from better educational opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dr. B let always kids redshirt. All the other NWDC schools let kids redshirt. The preschools in the area all knew that and recommended these kids be held last year. The new principal changed it and didn't tell anyone. How were families supposed to know they shouldn't listen to their preschools who were telling them to hold the kids??

How were parents supposed to know someone wasn't going to keep illegally letting them game the system is not the flex you think it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These parents are having their kids do PK elsewhere. In several cases they have other, older kids who Dr. B let enroll in K with a summer birthday. Then the new principal came in...apparently changed how the school is going to do it...and then *didn't tell anyone*.

So now these families have to follow different rules than they did with their previous kids...because no one told them the rules had changed! And these decisions to hold were made a year ago.

If the new principal wants to start doing it differently, seems totally fine, but you have to *tell* people, in advance, so they can decide accordingly.

And redshirting is generally allowed within a reasonable range at Mann, Stoddert, Murch, Janney.

The wealthiest and whitest schools in the city have principals that will let them break the rules which likely make their kids test better seems like a scandal actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: All the other NWDC schools let kids redshirt.

lol, this is not true.

At our NW DCPS, there are kids who have been allowed to repeat PK4 rather than move on to K. But it sounds here like these parents aren't doing PK at Lafayette and are just trying to enroll their kids into K instead of 1st?

Holding back with the agreement of the school, admin & parent is very different and within DCPS rules. These are parents who just want to enroll their kids one year below their actual age without the school’s buy in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These parents are having their kids do PK elsewhere. In several cases they have other, older kids who Dr. B let enroll in K with a summer birthday. Then the new principal came in...apparently changed how the school is going to do it...and then *didn't tell anyone*.

So now these families have to follow different rules than they did with their previous kids...because no one told them the rules had changed! And these decisions to hold were made a year ago.

If the new principal wants to start doing it differently, seems totally fine, but you have to *tell* people, in advance, so they can decide accordingly.

And redshirting is generally allowed within a reasonable range at Mann, Stoddert, Murch, Janney.

The old rule was literally against DCPS rules. The new principal was literally not at the school at the time when you say she should have notified people. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you people care so much? These parents are just trying to do the right thing for their kids. You sound bitter and self righteous and obnoxious. MYOB.

Kids who are a year older than their grade are eligible for equitable access preference in the high school lottery regardless of household income https://www.myschooldc.org/faq/key-terms#preference so letting these parents have their way now could keep three actual poor kids from better educational opportunities.

Woah. It actually never occurred to me that parents could try to play this criteria, but they absolutely could.

[Anonymous]

These rules were written for a school system that should be and is mostly concerned with a massive population of under served kids who are way more likely to be lost and need to be found by the system … than they were written for over involved parents who are on top of their kids and the schools.

Plenty of dcps kids go to K a year late, mostly because the system has to find them and get them to school. Clearly there should be flexibility for those principals and schools to let those kids do K at 6 (and often it is 7) if they’ve not been to school.

Similarly, the law about cumpulsory school at 5 is a truancy law. It’s not for parents using private school or pre K. It’s for parents who don’t put their kids in school at all.

The strict cut offs for PreK are designed to prevent people from getting a free year of extra public school. Everyone is entitled, in DC, to K-12, no matter how old you are when you start (within reason). Hence principal discretion. Yes, if you start in prek 3, you have to follow these cutoffs to the letter. But if you put your kid in private preK the rules are not written to prevent a school from letting you start K late. And certainly the rules are written to take care of the kids and let them have their best chance, regardless of whether their kids are meddling wealthy white people in Chevy chase or struggling parents of whatever background who can’t for whatever reason get their kids into school on time and as required by law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These rules were written for a school system that should be and is mostly concerned with a massive population of under served kids who are way more likely to be lost and need to be found by the system … than they were written for over involved parents who are on top of their kids and the schools.

Plenty of dcps kids go to K a year late, mostly because the system has to find them and get them to school. Clearly there should be flexibility for those principals and schools to let those kids do K at 6 (and often it is 7) if they’ve not been to school.

Similarly, the law about cumpulsory school at 5 is a truancy law. It’s not for parents using private school or pre K. It’s for parents who don’t put their kids in school at all.

The strict cut offs for PreK are designed to prevent people from getting a free year of extra public school. Everyone is entitled, in DC, to K-12, no matter how old you are when you start (within reason). Hence principal discretion. Yes, if you start in prek 3, you have to follow these cutoffs to the letter. But if you put your kid in private preK the rules are not written to prevent a school from letting you start K late. And certainly the rules are written to take care of the kids and let them have their best chance, regardless of whether their kids are meddling wealthy white people in Chevy chase or struggling parents of whatever background who can’t for whatever reason get their kids into school on time and as required by law.

Sorry this is indistinguishable from the rules shouldn't apply to me because I'm wealthy and white. There are reasons beyond compulsory education for enforcing cutoffs. Someone has to be the youngest kid in the class and unless there are legitimate learning or social emotional reasons to hold someone back, I want my kid to test better and be better at sports are not legitimate reasons for giving parents whatever they want.