Will Janney eventually reduce or eliminate PK4

[Anonymous]

The entire dynamics and politics of DC were very different in the 1970s - and it's always been a very progressive/liberal leaning city... while the legacies of those still shape the vibe today, doesn't seem to have much to do with whether the overcrowding today would either *force* Janney to cut some pre-Ks (like Stoddert did) or if it will start driving away some families voluntarily who are put off by the size and change in culture or if there's some other option that hasn't been introduced yet. [And then there's the overcrowding at Deal]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here -- Funny I grew up in Forest Hills too. Big house, definitely not Head Start eligible and went to Murch prek in 1977. DC was one of the first school district implemented it. Your parents may have decdied it wasn't for you or perhaps you went to a private preschool which is what two of my older siblings did since it wasn't available to them.

Here you go: http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/Pre-K%20for%20All%20DC%20Case%20Study.pdf

I'm the person you are trying to educate. You have succeeded, somewhat, in that I didn't know that DC's Head Stsrt preschool program was not means tested and instead was available (at least one classroom in every school building) to any family that was willing to wait in line overnight to secure a spot.

But the point still stands that your family sent you to a Head Start program as envisioned and implemented by DC. This program, created for disadvantaged children as part of LBJ's Great Society plan, was used by your family living in the big house in Forest Hills.

DC's approach to Head Stsrt eligibility when it rolled out was no doubt due to the realities of the city's demographics in the very late 60s and early 70s. As you'll recall, there weren't a lot of kids in this city at that time who -weren't- poor, in absolute numbers. Administratively, I'm sure it made sense to make the seats to kids not-at-risk, too, since as you'll recall, there just weren't that many of us attending public school in the early 1970s.

I am really not sure what your agenda is or if you are making all of this up or perhaps didn't attend DCPS during the 70s. The schools were packed. The enrollments numbers during the 70s were over 100,000 and then steadily dropped through the 80s (crack epidemic). For your review: https://data.dcpcsb.org/dataset/Historical-Enrollment-for-PCS-and-DCPS/hknn-uqwp

DCPS actually implemented a NON Head Start program in 1972. We can get into more detail if you would like but the AA demographics of DC were completely different back then. You had a large number of affluent AA families in the city with children and a very progressive approach to education happening in DC to satisfy the demands of the parents who saw how well Head Start was implemented and wanted a similar program non income/need based. Those were the families who were able to leave during DC's crack epidemic in the 1980s -- leaving behind a poorer demographic. It is really fascinating to read about our city and how it has changed over the years. You should really take some time to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here -- Funny I grew up in Forest Hills too. Big house, definitely not Head Start eligible and went to Murch prek in 1977. DC was one of the first school district implemented it. Your parents may have decdied it wasn't for you or perhaps you went to a private preschool which is what two of my older siblings did since it wasn't available to them.

Here you go: http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/Pre-K%20for%20All%20DC%20Case%20Study.pdf

I'm the person you are trying to educate. You have succeeded, somewhat, in that I didn't know that DC's Head Stsrt preschool program was not means tested and instead was available (at least one classroom in every school building) to any family that was willing to wait in line overnight to secure a spot.

But the point still stands that your family sent you to a Head Start program as envisioned and implemented by DC. This program, created for disadvantaged children as part of LBJ's Great Society plan, was used by your family living in the big house in Forest Hills.

DC's approach to Head Stsrt eligibility when it rolled out was no doubt due to the realities of the city's demographics in the very late 60s and early 70s. As you'll recall, there weren't a lot of kids in this city at that time who -weren't- poor, in absolute numbers. Administratively, I'm sure it made sense to make the seats to kids not-at-risk, too, since as you'll recall, there just weren't that many of us attending public school in the early 1970s.

I am really not sure what your agenda is or if you are making all of this up or perhaps didn't attend DCPS during the 70s. The schools were packed. The enrollments numbers during the 70s were over 100,000 and then steadily dropped through the 80s (crack epidemic). For your review: https://data.dcpcsb.org/dataset/Historical-Enrollment-for-PCS-and-DCPS/hknn-uqwp

DCPS actually implemented a NON Head Start program in 1972. We can get into more detail if you would like but the AA demographics of DC were completely different back then. You had a large number of affluent AA families in the city with children and a very progressive approach to education happening in DC to satisfy the demands of the parents who saw how well Head Start was implemented and wanted a similar program non income/need based. Those were the families who were able to leave during DC's crack epidemic in the 1980s -- leaving behind a poorer demographic. It is really fascinating to read about our city and how it has changed over the years. You should really take some time to do it.

I think the PP's agenda is to prove that PK is and should be for poor kids only, that everybody else should fend for themselves, or else they are stealing from the taxpayer (or her 3rd grader whose class she thinks is too crowded).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here -- Funny I grew up in Forest Hills too. Big house, definitely not Head Start eligible and went to Murch prek in 1977. DC was one of the first school district implemented it. Your parents may have decdied it wasn't for you or perhaps you went to a private preschool which is what two of my older siblings did since it wasn't available to them.

Here you go: http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/Pre-K%20for%20All%20DC%20Case%20Study.pdf

I'm the person you are trying to educate. You have succeeded, somewhat, in that I didn't know that DC's Head Stsrt preschool program was not means tested and instead was available (at least one classroom in every school building) to any family that was willing to wait in line overnight to secure a spot.

But the point still stands that your family sent you to a Head Start program as envisioned and implemented by DC. This program, created for disadvantaged children as part of LBJ's Great Society plan, was used by your family living in the big house in Forest Hills.

DC's approach to Head Stsrt eligibility when it rolled out was no doubt due to the realities of the city's demographics in the very late 60s and early 70s. As you'll recall, there weren't a lot of kids in this city at that time who -weren't- poor, in absolute numbers. Administratively, I'm sure it made sense to make the seats to kids not-at-risk, too, since as you'll recall, there just weren't that many of us attending public school in the early 1970s.

I am really not sure what your agenda is or if you are making all of this up or perhaps didn't attend DCPS during the 70s. The schools were packed. The enrollments numbers during the 70s were over 100,000 and then steadily dropped through the 80s (crack epidemic). For your review: https://data.dcpcsb.org/dataset/Historical-Enrollment-for-PCS-and-DCPS/hknn-uqwp

DCPS actually implemented a NON Head Start program in 1972. We can get into more detail if you would like but the AA demographics of DC were completely different back then. You had a large number of affluent AA families in the city with children and a very progressive approach to education happening in DC to satisfy the demands of the parents who saw how well Head Start was implemented and wanted a similar program non income/need based. Those were the families who were able to leave during DC's crack epidemic in the 1980s -- leaving behind a poorer demographic. It is really fascinating to read about our city and how it has changed over the years. You should really take some time to do it.

I think the PP's agenda is to prove that PK is and should be for poor kids only, that everybody else should fend for themselves, or else they are stealing from the taxpayer (or her 3rd grader whose class she thinks is too crowded).

But poor and disadvantaged kids benefit from being in a diverse classroom with wealthier peers. So limiting PK to just those who are economically disadvantaged is a lose-lose for everyone.

[Anonymous]

I don't think Janney needs to "eliminate" PK4 but having 4 or 5 classrooms for PK4 doesn't make sense when the school is overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here -- Funny I grew up in Forest Hills too. Big house, definitely not Head Start eligible and went to Murch prek in 1977. DC was one of the first school district implemented it. Your parents may have decdied it wasn't for you or perhaps you went to a private preschool which is what two of my older siblings did since it wasn't available to them.

Here you go: http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/Pre-K%20for%20All%20DC%20Case%20Study.pdf

I'm the person you are trying to educate. You have succeeded, somewhat, in that I didn't know that DC's Head Stsrt preschool program was not means tested and instead was available (at least one classroom in every school building) to any family that was willing to wait in line overnight to secure a spot.

But the point still stands that your family sent you to a Head Start program as envisioned and implemented by DC. This program, created for disadvantaged children as part of LBJ's Great Society plan, was used by your family living in the big house in Forest Hills.

DC's approach to Head Stsrt eligibility when it rolled out was no doubt due to the realities of the city's demographics in the very late 60s and early 70s. As you'll recall, there weren't a lot of kids in this city at that time who -weren't- poor, in absolute numbers. Administratively, I'm sure it made sense to make the seats to kids not-at-risk, too, since as you'll recall, there just weren't that many of us attending public school in the early 1970s.

I am really not sure what your agenda is or if you are making all of this up or perhaps didn't attend DCPS during the 70s. The schools were packed. The enrollments numbers during the 70s were over 100,000 and then steadily dropped through the 80s (crack epidemic). For your review: https://data.dcpcsb.org/dataset/Historical-Enrollment-for-PCS-and-DCPS/hknn-uqwp

DCPS actually implemented a NON Head Start program in 1972. We can get into more detail if you would like but the AA demographics of DC were completely different back then. You had a large number of affluent AA families in the city with children and a very progressive approach to education happening in DC to satisfy the demands of the parents who saw how well Head Start was implemented and wanted a similar program non income/need based. Those were the families who were able to leave during DC's crack epidemic in the 1980s -- leaving behind a poorer demographic. It is really fascinating to read about our city and how it has changed over the years. You should really take some time to do it.

I think the PP's agenda is to prove that PK is and should be for poor kids only, that everybody else should fend for themselves, or else they are stealing from the taxpayer (or her 3rd grader whose class she thinks is too crowded).

But poor and disadvantaged kids benefit from being in a diverse classroom with wealthier peers. So limiting PK to just those who are economically disadvantaged is a lose-lose for everyone.

Agree, and beyond that I believe that childcare and PK in particular should be heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. So my politics clearly differ from PP's.

[Anonymous]

DCPS actually implemented a NON Head Start program in 1972.

No, it was the this "state's" implementation of the federal Head Start program. Just because it wasn't named "Head" "Start" doesn't make it NON Head Start. They used federal funds allocated under the federal Head Start program. DC was one of the first to get it done. New York was the very first and Boston and, I think, Philly were right up there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Janney needs to "eliminate" PK4 but having 4 or 5 classrooms for PK4 doesn't make sense when the school is overcrowded.

Then it becomes a siblings only program. Which is unfair as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Janney needs to "eliminate" PK4 but having 4 or 5 classrooms for PK4 doesn't make sense when the school is overcrowded.

Then it becomes a siblings only program. Which is unfair as well.

And therefore what? PK is not a mandatory "grade." You think older kids should be in a 30+ class?

[Anonymous]

Didn't the 2014 revisions allow DME to tweak Janney's boundaries without going through the formal process? The Janney parents really need to push this to try and get a handle on the runaway train that the school has become.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

DCPS actually implemented a NON Head Start program in 1972.

No, it was the this "state's" implementation of the federal Head Start program. Just because it wasn't named "Head" "Start" doesn't make it NON Head Start. They used federal funds allocated under the federal Head Start program. DC was one of the first to get it done. New York was the very first and Boston and, I think, Philly were right up there.

You should just really read the report: http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/Pre-K%20for%20All%20DC%20Case%20Study.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Janney needs to "eliminate" PK4 but having 4 or 5 classrooms for PK4 doesn't make sense when the school is overcrowded.

Then it becomes a siblings only program. Which is unfair as well.

And therefore what? PK is not a mandatory "grade." You think older kids should be in a 30+ class?

I had 30+ kids in my elementary school class in the 70s, with ONE teacher. It was a nice school in a nice area (not in this country). I don't think small classes are a must for kids' well-being or success, unless they have special needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here -- Funny I grew up in Forest Hills too. Big house, definitely not Head Start eligible and went to Murch prek in 1977. DC was one of the first school district implemented it. Your parents may have decdied it wasn't for you or perhaps you went to a private preschool which is what two of my older siblings did since it wasn't available to them.

Here you go: http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/Pre-K%20for%20All%20DC%20Case%20Study.pdf

I'm the person you are trying to educate. You have succeeded, somewhat, in that I didn't know that DC's Head Stsrt preschool program was not means tested and instead was available (at least one classroom in every school building) to any family that was willing to wait in line overnight to secure a spot.

But the point still stands that your family sent you to a Head Start program as envisioned and implemented by DC. This program, created for disadvantaged children as part of LBJ's Great Society plan, was used by your family living in the big house in Forest Hills.

DC's approach to Head Stsrt eligibility when it rolled out was no doubt due to the realities of the city's demographics in the very late 60s and early 70s. As you'll recall, there weren't a lot of kids in this city at that time who -weren't- poor, in absolute numbers. Administratively, I'm sure it made sense to make the seats to kids not-at-risk, too, since as you'll recall, there just weren't that many of us attending public school in the early 1970s.

I am really not sure what your agenda is or if you are making all of this up or perhaps didn't attend DCPS during the 70s. The schools were packed. The enrollments numbers during the 70s were over 100,000 and then steadily dropped through the 80s (crack epidemic). For your review: https://data.dcpcsb.org/dataset/Historical-Enrollment-for-PCS-and-DCPS/hknn-uqwp

DCPS actually implemented a NON Head Start program in 1972. We can get into more detail if you would like but the AA demographics of DC were completely different back then. You had a large number of affluent AA families in the city with children and a very progressive approach to education happening in DC to satisfy the demands of the parents who saw how well Head Start was implemented and wanted a similar program non income/need based. Those were the families who were able to leave during DC's crack epidemic in the 1980s -- leaving behind a poorer demographic. It is really fascinating to read about our city and how it has changed over the years. You should really take some time to do it.

I think the PP's agenda is to prove that PK is and should be for poor kids only, that everybody else should fend for themselves, or else they are stealing from the taxpayer (or her 3rd grader whose class she thinks is too crowded).

Ok, I get it now. That and a touch of revisionist history seems to work to her advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We tried this, remember? There isn't any good answer except a new school in upper NW, and that is basically impossible. It does seem smart to cut out 3 or even 4 sections of pre-K given the space constraints post-renovation plus the lack of room for trailers, plus the overcrowding in older grades. Or maybe DCPS could rent a separate small facility for a Janney pre-K.

A new school in upper NW would be great! Why is this impossible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Janney needs to "eliminate" PK4 but having 4 or 5 classrooms for PK4 doesn't make sense when the school is overcrowded.

Then it becomes a siblings only program. Which is unfair as well.

No it isn't. Siblings are obviously more valuable than newbie/onlies. The parents are twice as invested.