Will Janney eventually reduce or eliminate PK4

[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.

Quoting from the report:

In 1972, DC became one of the first jurisdictions in the country to offer pre-K in public school settings. The program, operated by the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS), focused solely on four-year-olds and was funded through the school-funding formula on a per-pupil basis.

Do you make up other shit, or just here?

[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?

Of course. Because somebody paid a lot of money to live near Janney. Have you actually driven around there? We had an appointment in Friendship Heights and were forced to park on Jennifer Street. Dolls couldn't live in those houses - no surprise they're all angry and miserable! Now the crowded children are in crowded classrooms because new people coming in want free PreK. So what? Pay for your own daycare! It's insane that toddlercare has become such a hot button. It's Tenleytown not Tokyo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Of course. Because somebody paid a lot of money to live near Janney. Have you actually driven around there? We had an appointment in Friendship Heights and were forced to park on Jennifer Street. Dolls couldn't live in those houses - no surprise they're all angry and miserable! Now the crowded children are in crowded classrooms because new people coming in want free PreK. So what? Pay for your own daycare! It's insane that toddlercare has become such a hot button. It's Tenleytown not Tokyo.

Except I don't think the area right around Friendship is zoned for Janney. Isn't that the area that used to be zoned for Murch but was just rezoned for Lafayette?

[Anonymous]

No, the section of FH adjacent to Wisconsin is zoned for Janney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

NP. I read the report and it says that DC started a test pilot school for Head Start in the 60s and expanded the program in the 70s so that each school had at least one preK class. That is what PP said. Over the years, DC has expanded the program, in a patchwork manner, to serve 70% of children in the 2000s, through federal funding and through grants.

[Anonymous]

The Murch part of the Western Avenue zone was a narrow "chimney" between 41st St and Conn.; that shifted to Lafayette. Now 41st street at Western is the divide between Janney and Lafayette, and Murch's northern boundary has shifted south to Military.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even Janney's principal doesn't think 30 kids and one teacher is sufficient given that the 3rd grade class this year with 30 kids per class had TWO full time teachers. So no, 30 kids and one teacher is not a positive learning environment not one that I would want my child in just so they could get one free year of preK. Even with two full time teachers, 30 kids is an awful lot of children to have in classrooms that weren't designed to be that large. Even if by eliminating several preK classes means it becomes a sibling only program (and some siblings would still probably be excluded), I'd take that any day over my kid having mega class sizes in the early grades. Or losing a portion of the playground to portables, if that's even an option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even Janney's principal doesn't think 30 kids and one teacher is sufficient given that the 3rd grade class this year with 30 kids per class had TWO full time teachers. So no, 30 kids and one teacher is not a positive learning environment not one that I would want my child in just so they could get one free year of preK. Even with two full time teachers, 30 kids is an awful lot of children to have in classrooms that weren't designed to be that large. Even if by eliminating several preK classes means it becomes a sibling only program (and some siblings would still probably be excluded), I'd take that any day over my kid having mega class sizes in the early grades. Or losing a portion of the playground to portables, if that's even an option.

+1 here (Janney family with a younger sibling not at the school and would be happy to give up "free PK" for a year so older kids would not have 30+ kids in a class).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Of course. Because somebody paid a lot of money to live near Janney. Have you actually driven around there? We had an appointment in Friendship Heights and were forced to park on Jennifer Street. Dolls couldn't live in those houses - no surprise they're all angry and miserable! Now the crowded children are in crowded classrooms because new people coming in want free PreK. So what? Pay for your own daycare! It's insane that toddlercare has become such a hot button. It's Tenleytown not Tokyo.

LOL. You clearly don't know the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Just wonder as someone who has dealt with similar issues else where in the city, have Janney parents gotten any traction with DCPS, the Council, the mayor etc on this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just wonder as someone who has dealt with similar issues else where in the city, have Janney parents gotten any traction with DCPS, the Council, the mayor etc on this?

I think it's the principal's decision. I believe it was the prior prinicpal who decided to expand PK4 to add another class just 2 years ago.

[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.

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

lol I wasn't aware that public education policy should depend on the "value" or "investment" of individual students ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

lol I wasn't aware that public education policy should depend on the "value" or "investment" of individual students ...

+1. While I agree that siblings should be given priority, PP's statement is truly terrible. Especially since she not only deems "newbies" individuals of lesser value to the school, but also only children. Yikes. Sibling priority is justified so as not to complicate families' logistics or split their involvement between multiple schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even Janney's principal doesn't think 30 kids and one teacher is sufficient given that the 3rd grade class this year with 30 kids per class had TWO full time teachers. So no, 30 kids and one teacher is not a positive learning environment not one that I would want my child in just so they could get one free year of preK. Even with two full time teachers, 30 kids is an awful lot of children to have in classrooms that weren't designed to be that large. Even if by eliminating several preK classes means it becomes a sibling only program (and some siblings would still probably be excluded), I'd take that any day over my kid having mega class sizes in the early grades. Or losing a portion of the playground to portables, if that's even an option.

I wasn't suggesting one teacher would be enough, but that given my experience, 30 kids with two teachers, as Janney has today, isn't such a bad situation.

[Anonymous]

Alysia Lutz came from Stoddart where they have 1 PK class . This leads me to think it's at least possible that she will reduce the # of PK classes in the coming years. I think she spent her first year seeing how the school was working and made maybe some small changes. This year I think there will be more, and for each coming year, even more.

My older didin't get a PK spot and my second one did (sibling advantage) but even with kid #2 I wasn't betting on it. I think most people who buy in AU PK know it's not a sure bet.