How are PK3-4 parents feeling about distance learning?

[Anonymous]

So in this news conference they are saying all DL is not an option for PK 3 and PK 4, so I guess if they can't do hybrid right away, they aren't offering anything for PK 3 and 4? Guess we should all start getting our nannies/pods ready now!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So in this news conference they are saying all DL is not an option for PK 3 and PK 4, so I guess if they can't do hybrid right away, they aren't offering anything for PK 3 and 4? Guess we should all start getting our nannies/pods ready now!

holy shit, nothing? My DD has a nanny right now, but I was really hoping for at least some sort of direction from the school if it is DL only.

[Anonymous]

I knew this was going to happen. Thank goodness i lined up a fulltime nanny for my Pk4 child. Looks like there will be no PL this year since no virtual option and all DL is going to be announced on the 31st

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are in Prek3 this year with our middle one (our oldest a rising K). We are going to do enough to keep our spot, but I am not doing any real learning. Our oldest was not in a PreK program and left K reading at a 3rd grade level, so I am not at all worried about this.

Rising First Grader. Point is PreK3 and PreK4 are unneessary.

They're not unnecessary for a lot of low income families and families that don't speak English at home. We'll be feeling for decades how bad this will all be for children who really need PreK so they're not being come K.

[Anonymous]

The more I think about this, the more I think DCPS should be looking for ways to prioritize in-person days for PK (and maybe also K and even 1st) while going to an all DL option for all older grades. I think it's silly to focus on academics for PK -- that's honestly not what universal PK is about. The whole reason for the universal PK program was to help families by easing the childcare burden on families. There isn't even much conclusive evidence that academic instruction in PK improves long-term outcomes. But the availability of PK helps families because it makes it easier for parents, particularly women, to work. For low-income and even middle class families, working parents create financial stability which can only be good for children.

Even you think about PK as a childcare solution, not an academic solution, it becomes clear that:

(1) DL is pointless for this age group -- it doesn't benefit the kids academically and it only increases the burden on families who have to manage homeschooling of very young children who are not capable of working independently yet; and

(2) If DCPS is able to offer any in-person instruction this year, it should prioritize it for PK students, students with special needs, and students who don't have access to a home environment that accommodates DL.

Acting like just abandoning PK for the year because DL doesn't work at this age totally ignores why PK exists to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about this, the more I think DCPS should be looking for ways to prioritize in-person days for PK (and maybe also K and even 1st) while going to an all DL option for all older grades. I think it's silly to focus on academics for PK -- that's honestly not what universal PK is about. The whole reason for the universal PK program was to help families by easing the childcare burden on families. There isn't even much conclusive evidence that academic instruction in PK improves long-term outcomes. But the availability of PK helps families because it makes it easier for parents, particularly women, to work. For low-income and even middle class families, working parents create financial stability which can only be good for children.

Even you think about PK as a childcare solution, not an academic solution, it becomes clear that:

(1) DL is pointless for this age group -- it doesn't benefit the kids academically and it only increases the burden on families who have to manage homeschooling of very young children who are not capable of working independently yet; and

(2) If DCPS is able to offer any in-person instruction this year, it should prioritize it for PK students, students with special needs, and students who don't have access to a home environment that accommodates DL.

Acting like just abandoning PK for the year because DL doesn't work at this age totally ignores why PK exists to begin with.

Very well said

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about this, the more I think DCPS should be looking for ways to prioritize in-person days for PK (and maybe also K and even 1st) while going to an all DL option for all older grades. I think it's silly to focus on academics for PK -- that's honestly not what universal PK is about. The whole reason for the universal PK program was to help families by easing the childcare burden on families. There isn't even much conclusive evidence that academic instruction in PK improves long-term outcomes. But the availability of PK helps families because it makes it easier for parents, particularly women, to work. For low-income and even middle class families, working parents create financial stability which can only be good for children.

Even you think about PK as a childcare solution, not an academic solution, it becomes clear that:

(1) DL is pointless for this age group -- it doesn't benefit the kids academically and it only increases the burden on families who have to manage homeschooling of very young children who are not capable of working independently yet; and

(2) If DCPS is able to offer any in-person instruction this year, it should prioritize it for PK students, students with special needs, and students who don't have access to a home environment that accommodates DL.

Acting like just abandoning PK for the year because DL doesn't work at this age totally ignores why PK exists to begin with.

Please include Sped PK. It's way more than childcare! Some children in my classroom were non-verbal at first and learned to talk because of school and the supports we provide! They learn so many skills that can't be accomplished through PACKETS or even DL.

DL is bad but not worthless, I can at least teach parents or their care providers how to help their functional language skills. I can't dictate in person and I tried but pretty much all my colleagues disagreed about in person. Which I understand I am only 23 (healthy), married but no children.

The announcement today was devastating and I hope it'll be rescinded. Even 1 day a week, I'll wear a hazmat suit, the students can think I'm an astronaut...

[Anonymous]

I really hope they offer a DL option for families that want it and are not comfortable with sending their kids into school during a pandemic. It doesn't seem like this would be costly. And would make a lot of parents happy.

[Anonymous]

My 3 yo really enjoyed the morning meetings they did with daycare, so DL is going to be a nice way to have some sense of community. Outside of that, I’ll be doing the educating myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If a family is getting a nanny or a parent at home you should be able to do the 20-45 minutes per day of writing practice, readalouds, art projects, weekly class meetings, etc rather than ask a school to not serve you and possibly lose out on their per pupil funding when they need all the resources they can get. [/
PP here. I think you misunderstood. Obviously if there is no in-person school people are going to have to do whatever they need to do to get by -- everyone is struggling with this situation (I would not say that I am "managing" particularly well). I meant that if there is in-person school and some families choose to send their kids to private daycare instead, I feel weird about saying the schools should save those spots for them when another kid could occupy it this year. If everything is DL, even kids going to daycare could probably participate with DL minimally. I was just talking about in-person slots. Some folks can't afford a private option and those who can shouldn't also get to hold on to DCPS slots that could go to students whose parents don't have the option of paying someone to watch their kids.

This is ridiculous. Would you like us to quit our jobs or hire nannies instead? My daycare is cheaper than a nanny, we have a sibling there, our kiddo has been happy there for more than 3 years and we adore the center model. You want us to give up that for 90 minutes of zoom a week, and to either have to pull our youngest out of an environment we love that we planned on for several years or what? Let our older one watch TV all day while we try to work? Have an affordable but untrained sitter? Increase our risk and our entire center’s risk by trading care with strangers who happen to also have toddlers? Just because we can afford to keep our current spot doesn’t mean we deserve to lose the lottery spot we won for the next EIGHT years at a school we love in our neighborhood. We can’t afford to move to an area with better schools. We can’t be sure we’ll win the lottery again. We can’t afford to lose our jobs and the nanny choice isn’t a good one for us for many reasons. Feel free to give up your seat.

[Anonymous]

I'm confused as as to what people are talking about in the previous three to four posts. Why is today's announcement "devastating"? To my understanding, pre-K in person will take place two days a week either Monday and Tuesday for group a and Thursday and Friday for group b. Is this not correct? I'd rather have some in person Pre-K then nothing at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about this, the more I think DCPS should be looking for ways to prioritize in-person days for PK (and maybe also K and even 1st) while going to an all DL option for all older grades. I think it's silly to focus on academics for PK -- that's honestly not what universal PK is about. The whole reason for the universal PK program was to help families by easing the childcare burden on families. There isn't even much conclusive evidence that academic instruction in PK improves long-term outcomes. But the availability of PK helps families because it makes it easier for parents, particularly women, to work. For low-income and even middle class families, working parents create financial stability which can only be good for children.

Even you think about PK as a childcare solution, not an academic solution, it becomes clear that:

(1) DL is pointless for this age group -- it doesn't benefit the kids academically and it only increases the burden on families who have to manage homeschooling of very young children who are not capable of working independently yet; and

(2) If DCPS is able to offer any in-person instruction this year, it should prioritize it for PK students, students with special needs, and students who don't have access to a home environment that accommodates DL.

Acting like just abandoning PK for the year because DL doesn't work at this age totally ignores why PK exists to begin with.

Please include Sped PK. It's way more than childcare! Some children in my classroom were non-verbal at first and learned to talk because of school and the supports we provide! They learn so many skills that can't be accomplished through PACKETS or even DL.

DL is bad but not worthless, I can at least teach parents or their care providers how to help their functional language skills. I can't dictate in person and I tried but pretty much all my colleagues disagreed about in person. Which I understand I am only 23 (healthy), married but no children.

The announcement today was devastating and I hope it'll be rescinded. Even 1 day a week, I'll wear a hazmat suit, the students can think I'm an astronaut...

I just wanted to let you know that your passion for what you do and kind-heartedness shines through in your post. DCPS is lucky to have you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused as as to what people are talking about in the previous three to four posts. Why is today's announcement "devastating"? To my understanding, pre-K in person will take place two days a week either Monday and Tuesday for group a and Thursday and Friday for group b. Is this not correct? I'd rather have some in person Pre-K then nothing at all.

Yes, that’s the case if school goes back in person at all. However, it seems there is greater than a 95% chance that school will not go back in person and will instead go 100% DL, at least to start. In that case, there is no PK, other than packets being sent home for you to work on with your child. No in-person and no online lessons.

[Anonymous]

We got a PK4 spot at at inbound DCPS. Thankfully, we kept his spot at his private preschool which is planning on opening 5 days a week with restrictions come September. DL does not work for little guys. They need to play with their friends. I’m not concerned about the academics. The social- emotional piece is the biggest thing at this age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about this, the more I think DCPS should be looking for ways to prioritize in-person days for PK (and maybe also K and even 1st) while going to an all DL option for all older grades. I think it's silly to focus on academics for PK -- that's honestly not what universal PK is about. The whole reason for the universal PK program was to help families by easing the childcare burden on families. There isn't even much conclusive evidence that academic instruction in PK improves long-term outcomes. But the availability of PK helps families because it makes it easier for parents, particularly women, to work. For low-income and even middle class families, working parents create financial stability which can only be good for children.

Even you think about PK as a childcare solution, not an academic solution, it becomes clear that:

(1) DL is pointless for this age group -- it doesn't benefit the kids academically and it only increases the burden on families who have to manage homeschooling of very young children who are not capable of working independently yet; and

(2) If DCPS is able to offer any in-person instruction this year, it should prioritize it for PK students, students with special needs, and students who don't have access to a home environment that accommodates DL.

Acting like just abandoning PK for the year because DL doesn't work at this age totally ignores why PK exists to begin with.

Interesting perspective. I would add Kindergarten to PK because K is such a pivotal year for learning that cannot happen via DL. The high risk kids that miss in-person K are the ones who are really going to suffer down the line.