Head Start next year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bunker Hill, Burroughs, Langdon, Noyes, and Langley are all out next year.

Bunker Hill is 100% economically disadvantaged - you're talking out of your ass and have yet to provide any evidence.

Signed,
Bunker Hill parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bunker Hill, Burroughs, Langdon, Noyes, and Langley are all out next year.

Bunker Hill is 100% economically disadvantaged - you're talking out of your ass and have yet to provide any evidence.

Signed,
Bunker Hill parent

No it isn't, that is just how it is reported when you have community eligibility. But I would be shocked if they and Noyes lose it.

[Anonymous]

This troll has just been posting in every thread mentioning HS and starting tons of her own. S/he may have inside info. S/he may not. But s/he has yet to back up a single one of her assertions and has repeatedly posted percentage data for schools that is incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This troll has just been posting in every thread mentioning HS and starting tons of her own. S/he may have inside info. S/he may not. But s/he has yet to back up a single one of her assertions and has repeatedly posted percentage data for schools that is incorrect.

Not defending the troll, but I don't think this year's schoolwide percentages are available yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This troll has just been posting in every thread mentioning HS and starting tons of her own. S/he may have inside info. S/he may not. But s/he has yet to back up a single one of her assertions and has repeatedly posted percentage data for schools that is incorrect.

Not defending the troll, but I don't think this year's schoolwide percentages are available yet.

I assumed they were providing last year's data as they started providing it pre-count day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bunker Hill, Burroughs, Langdon, Noyes, and Langley are all out next year.

Bunker Hill is 100% economically disadvantaged - you're talking out of your ass and have yet to provide any evidence.

Signed,
Bunker Hill parent

As a reminder, Head Start is a program for economically disadvantaged 3 and 4 year old children in preK. Yes, grades K-5 might be heavily disadvantaged but this is not the case in preK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This troll has just been posting in every thread mentioning HS and starting tons of her own. S/he may have inside info. S/he may not. But s/he has yet to back up a single one of her assertions and has repeatedly posted percentage data for schools that is incorrect.

Not defending the troll, but I don't think this year's schoolwide percentages are available yet.

I assumed they were providing last year's data as they started providing it pre-count day.

Head Start eligibility is not based on the overall school poverty percentage, but the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in preK. Yes, all of the schools that will not have Head Start are heavily disadvantaged in grades K/1 through 5, but this is not the case in preK/ECE. If you look at the categorical poverty data for things like SNAP, TANF, homeless children, and foster children the rates for many of the schools that are being cut is extremely low. If DCPS was basing the decision on overall school poverty all of the schools except Ludlow Taylor and Van Ness would still receive the services. Now, Head Start and Title I are two separate things. All of these schools except maybe Ludlow and Van Ness will remain Title I for next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This troll has just been posting in every thread mentioning HS and starting tons of her own. S/he may have inside info. S/he may not. But s/he has yet to back up a single one of her assertions and has repeatedly posted percentage data for schools that is incorrect.

Not defending the troll, but I don't think this year's schoolwide percentages are available yet.

I assumed they were providing last year's data as they started providing it pre-count day.

Head Start eligibility is not based on the overall school poverty percentage, but the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in preK. Yes, all of the schools that will not have Head Start are heavily disadvantaged in grades K/1 through 5, but this is not the case in preK/ECE. If you look at the categorical poverty data for things like SNAP, TANF, homeless children, and foster children the rates for many of the schools that are being cut is extremely low. If DCPS was basing the decision on overall school poverty all of the schools except Ludlow Taylor and Van Ness would still receive the services. Now, Head Start and Title I are two separate things. All of these schools except maybe Ludlow and Van Ness will remain Title I for next year.

I agree, it is odd how the troll pops up to make these random assertions but provides no background on how the decision is being made, what percentage a school needs to qualify, what exactly os being withheld, when the announcement will be made, etc. The list of schools keeps changing too. A person truly in the know would not leak, or would leak more persuasively. This just reads like stirring the pot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This troll has just been posting in every thread mentioning HS and starting tons of her own. S/he may have inside info. S/he may not. But s/he has yet to back up a single one of her assertions and has repeatedly posted percentage data for schools that is incorrect.

Not defending the troll, but I don't think this year's schoolwide percentages are available yet.

I assumed they were providing last year's data as they started providing it pre-count day.

Head Start eligibility is not based on the overall school poverty percentage, but the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in preK. Yes, all of the schools that will not have Head Start are heavily disadvantaged in grades K/1 through 5, but this is not the case in preK/ECE. If you look at the categorical poverty data for things like SNAP, TANF, homeless children, and foster children the rates for many of the schools that are being cut is extremely low. If DCPS was basing the decision on overall school poverty all of the schools except Ludlow Taylor and Van Ness would still receive the services. Now, Head Start and Title I are two separate things. All of these schools except maybe Ludlow and Van Ness will remain Title I for next year.

I agree, it is odd how the troll pops up to make these random assertions but provides no background on how the decision is being made, what percentage a school needs to qualify, what exactly os being withheld, when the announcement will be made, etc. The list of schools keeps changing too. A person truly in the know would not leak, or would leak more persuasively. This just reads like stirring the pot.

All of this has already been explained multiple times in the thread. Did anyone honestly think that Head Start was going to continue to allow DCPS to continue providing services with schools with less than a third of Head Start eligible kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This troll has just been posting in every thread mentioning HS and starting tons of her own. S/he may have inside info. S/he may not. But s/he has yet to back up a single one of her assertions and has repeatedly posted percentage data for schools that is incorrect.

Not defending the troll, but I don't think this year's schoolwide percentages are available yet.

I assumed they were providing last year's data as they started providing it pre-count day.

Head Start eligibility is not based on the overall school poverty percentage, but the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in preK. Yes, all of the schools that will not have Head Start are heavily disadvantaged in grades K/1 through 5, but this is not the case in preK/ECE. If you look at the categorical poverty data for things like SNAP, TANF, homeless children, and foster children the rates for many of the schools that are being cut is extremely low. If DCPS was basing the decision on overall school poverty all of the schools except Ludlow Taylor and Van Ness would still receive the services. Now, Head Start and Title I are two separate things. All of these schools except maybe Ludlow and Van Ness will remain Title I for next year.

I agree, it is odd how the troll pops up to make these random assertions but provides no background on how the decision is being made, what percentage a school needs to qualify, what exactly os being withheld, when the announcement will be made, etc. The list of schools keeps changing too. A person truly in the know would not leak, or would leak more persuasively. This just reads like stirring the pot.

All of this has already been explained multiple times in the thread. Did anyone honestly think that Head Start was going to continue to allow DCPS to continue providing services with schools with less than a third of Head Start eligible kids.

They well might, but your trolling is not persuasive. If you can provide a full list of schools and the cutoff percentage, I will believe you are not just a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This troll has just been posting in every thread mentioning HS and starting tons of her own. S/he may have inside info. S/he may not. But s/he has yet to back up a single one of her assertions and has repeatedly posted percentage data for schools that is incorrect.

Not defending the troll, but I don't think this year's schoolwide percentages are available yet.

I assumed they were providing last year's data as they started providing it pre-count day.

Head Start eligibility is not based on the overall school poverty percentage, but the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in preK. Yes, all of the schools that will not have Head Start are heavily disadvantaged in grades K/1 through 5, but this is not the case in preK/ECE. If you look at the categorical poverty data for things like SNAP, TANF, homeless children, and foster children the rates for many of the schools that are being cut is extremely low. If DCPS was basing the decision on overall school poverty all of the schools except Ludlow Taylor and Van Ness would still receive the services. Now, Head Start and Title I are two separate things. All of these schools except maybe Ludlow and Van Ness will remain Title I for next year.

I agree, it is odd how the troll pops up to make these random assertions but provides no background on how the decision is being made, what percentage a school needs to qualify, what exactly os being withheld, when the announcement will be made, etc. The list of schools keeps changing too. A person truly in the know would not leak, or would leak more persuasively. This just reads like stirring the pot.

All of this has already been explained multiple times in the thread. Did anyone honestly think that Head Start was going to continue to allow DCPS to continue providing services with schools with less than a third of Head Start eligible kids.

They well might, but your trolling is not persuasive. If you can provide a full list of schools and the cutoff percentage, I will believe you are not just a troll.

The cutoff percentage was 45%-50%. All of the schools in wards 7 and 8 will have Head Start and 11-12 other schools. Some schools include Brightwood, Truesdell, Wheatley and Dorothy Height.

[Anonymous]

Can someone direct me to the source for information about the SES status of students, by grade, at a particular school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone direct me to the source for information about the SES status of students, by grade, at a particular school?

Not a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone direct me to the source for information about the SES status of students, by grade, at a particular school?

Not a thing.

Neighborhood poverty data exists...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This troll has just been posting in every thread mentioning HS and starting tons of her own. S/he may have inside info. S/he may not. But s/he has yet to back up a single one of her assertions and has repeatedly posted percentage data for schools that is incorrect.

Not defending the troll, but I don't think this year's schoolwide percentages are available yet.

I assumed they were providing last year's data as they started providing it pre-count day.

Head Start eligibility is not based on the overall school poverty percentage, but the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in preK. Yes, all of the schools that will not have Head Start are heavily disadvantaged in grades K/1 through 5, but this is not the case in preK/ECE. If you look at the categorical poverty data for things like SNAP, TANF, homeless children, and foster children the rates for many of the schools that are being cut is extremely low. If DCPS was basing the decision on overall school poverty all of the schools except Ludlow Taylor and Van Ness would still receive the services. Now, Head Start and Title I are two separate things. All of these schools except maybe Ludlow and Van Ness will remain Title I for next year.

I agree, it is odd how the troll pops up to make these random assertions but provides no background on how the decision is being made, what percentage a school needs to qualify, what exactly os being withheld, when the announcement will be made, etc. The list of schools keeps changing too. A person truly in the know would not leak, or would leak more persuasively. This just reads like stirring the pot.

All of this has already been explained multiple times in the thread. Did anyone honestly think that Head Start was going to continue to allow DCPS to continue providing services with schools with less than a third of Head Start eligible kids.

You just keep posting the same assertions over and over. You keep saying this will be announced “soon,” but you’ve been saying that for ages and there’s been no announcement. You also have a very the sky is falling approach to what losing HS will mean for most schools. I actually wonder if you’re an instructional coach because you seem particularly obsessed by the role that they play where no ECE teacher in my T1 school seems to think they’re anything more than a slightly helpful resource.