Head Start next year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This. Provide some real data and a cite, or stop it. And what's the big deal if high-income schools lose Head Start? If they're going to take away a whole classroom, that's newsworthy. But if the teachers are losing a little PD coaching time or the schools have to replace some classroom materials, that's just not a big deal for a high-income school.

The instructional coaches provide more than just “PD time”. They provide comprehensive support in various areas such as ensuring that the curriculum is being taught properly, behavior management strategies, support with meeting CLASS objectives, classroom climate guidance, and lesson plan development. I could list a million things that schools receive with Head Start. Schools will also have to pay for subscriptions to GOLD for assessments.

Good teachers already know that stuff, and a high-SES PTA can easily comp it. Most of the teachers have been through all of your sucky PD guidance already. If it's like most services from downtown, it pretty much sucks.

Oh really, are you a DCPS ECE teacher? The majority of the ECE teachers receiving coaching benefit from having comprehensive coaching.

How would you know they benefit? They might say it to your face to be polite, but like most services from downtown, it isn't very good.

Most of them have had it already and don't need to have it again.

Well considering the fact that the CLASS scores for ECE teachers receiving coaching are higher than those that don’t speaks volumes.

Funny how the schools where they don't have it are doing really well, isn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This. Provide some real data and a cite, or stop it. And what's the big deal if high-income schools lose Head Start? If they're going to take away a whole classroom, that's newsworthy. But if the teachers are losing a little PD coaching time or the schools have to replace some classroom materials, that's just not a big deal for a high-income school.

The instructional coaches provide more than just “PD time”. They provide comprehensive support in various areas such as ensuring that the curriculum is being taught properly, behavior management strategies, support with meeting CLASS objectives, classroom climate guidance, and lesson plan development. I could list a million things that schools receive with Head Start. Schools will also have to pay for subscriptions to GOLD for assessments.

Good teachers already know that stuff, and a high-SES PTA can easily comp it. Most of the teachers have been through all of your sucky PD guidance already. If it's like most services from downtown, it pretty much sucks.

Oh really, are you a DCPS ECE teacher? The majority of the ECE teachers receiving coaching benefit from having comprehensive coaching.

How would you know they benefit? They might say it to your face to be polite, but like most services from downtown, it isn't very good.

Most of them have had it already and don't need to have it again.

Well considering the fact that the CLASS scores for ECE teachers receiving coaching are higher than those that don’t speaks volumes.

Funny how the schools where they don't have it are doing really well, isn't it?

Do you even know how instructional coaching works for ECE at DCPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe I'm taking this seriously, but looking back over the thread, here's what I glean from the Leaky Troll's often-contradictory remarks:

*******In********
Brightwood
Truesdell
Wheatley
Height
Walker-Jones
Browne
LaSalle
Langdon
Noyes
Tubman
Raymond
Cleveland

Thomas
Houston
Burrville
Drew
Aiton
Smothers
Kimball
Plummer
Nalle
Harris
RH
Orr
Beers
Ketcham
Stanton
Garfield
Savoy
Moten
Leckie
King
Turner
Malcolm X
Simon
Hendley
Patterson

******Out******
Langley
Noyes
Burroughs
Bunker Hill
L-T
Garrison
Van Ness
West
Payne
Thomson
Marie Reed
Bancroft
Powell
Tyler
Bancroft


*******Undetermined******
Seaton
Miner
Takoma
JOW
Bruce-Monroe
Whittier
Cooke

It's a mystery to me why Langley would lose Head Start and not Seaton, Takoma, Bruce-Monroe, or JO Wilson. So I'd have to think those schools are out as well. Noyes is on both the In and the Out lists so that's a mystery.

Troll: Confirm or deny this list!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This. Provide some real data and a cite, or stop it. And what's the big deal if high-income schools lose Head Start? If they're going to take away a whole classroom, that's newsworthy. But if the teachers are losing a little PD coaching time or the schools have to replace some classroom materials, that's just not a big deal for a high-income school.

The instructional coaches provide more than just “PD time”. They provide comprehensive support in various areas such as ensuring that the curriculum is being taught properly, behavior management strategies, support with meeting CLASS objectives, classroom climate guidance, and lesson plan development. I could list a million things that schools receive with Head Start. Schools will also have to pay for subscriptions to GOLD for assessments.

Good teachers already know that stuff, and a high-SES PTA can easily comp it. Most of the teachers have been through all of your sucky PD guidance already. If it's like most services from downtown, it pretty much sucks.

Oh really, are you a DCPS ECE teacher? The majority of the ECE teachers receiving coaching benefit from having comprehensive coaching.

How would you know they benefit? They might say it to your face to be polite, but like most services from downtown, it isn't very good.

Most of them have had it already and don't need to have it again.

Well considering the fact that the CLASS scores for ECE teachers receiving coaching are higher than those that don’t speaks volumes.

Funny how the schools where they don't have it are doing really well, isn't it?

Do you even know how instructional coaching works for ECE at DCPS?

When is the part where you back up your assertions with a citation? It's really odd that you're pretending to have inside information to leak. If you really did, you wouldn't be dumb enough to leak it here.

[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.

Didn't think so - explains why our troll has been unable to substantiate her claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys really have no clue about just how much Head Start covers for schools. I suppose that your affluent preK parents will enjoy paying for the ECE teachers to have subscriptions to the assessment system or covering the cost of field trip buses with safety restraints.

If the schools aren't Head Start anymore, they won't need field trip buses with carseats

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys really have no clue about just how much Head Start covers for schools. I suppose that your affluent preK parents will enjoy paying for the ECE teachers to have subscriptions to the assessment system or covering the cost of field trip buses with safety restraints.

If the schools aren't Head Start anymore, they won't need field trip buses with carseats

It costs about $1500 a day for a big bus. NBD.

[Anonymous]

I do not get what all the angst is about.

If an ECE program is no longer serving mostly low-income children, it simply doesn't qualify for more federal resources. This is how it is everywhere in the country.

DC used to have almost exclusively low-income children in its ECE (~10 years ago) and almost all schools got a share of the city's Title 1 budget even as more middle and upper-income children enrolled.

Going forward those schools with the kids with the most need with get the extra resources that they are supposed to as defined by the US Dept of Ed.

The city can of course come up with more funding make all classrooms equally funded -- but that sort of defeats the purpose of additional supports for kids who are already behind by age 3.

Maybe this will make DC public PK3 and PK4 less attractive to wealthy families. I am not bothered by it; those aren't compulsory grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys really have no clue about just how much Head Start covers for schools. I suppose that your affluent preK parents will enjoy paying for the ECE teachers to have subscriptions to the assessment system or covering the cost of field trip buses with safety restraints.

If the schools aren't Head Start anymore, they won't need field trip buses with carseats

Well it’s a DCPS policy that all preK students are transported in child safety restraints. It doesn’t matter if the school has Head Start or not.

Source: https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/Student%20Transportation%20Policy%202017.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not get what all the angst is about.

If an ECE program is no longer serving mostly low-income children, it simply doesn't qualify for more federal resources. This is how it is everywhere in the country.

DC used to have almost exclusively low-income children in its ECE (~10 years ago) and almost all schools got a share of the city's Title 1 budget even as more middle and upper-income children enrolled.

Going forward those schools with the kids with the most need with get the extra resources that they are supposed to as defined by the US Dept of Ed.

The city can of course come up with more funding make all classrooms equally funded -- but that sort of defeats the purpose of additional supports for kids who are already behind by age 3.

Maybe this will make DC public PK3 and PK4 less attractive to wealthy families. I am not bothered by it; those aren't compulsory grades.

THIS. If you don’t qualify then you don’t get it. ECE with predominantly middle class families should not get it.

[Anonymous]

I really don’t understand why people are so upset about Head Start being cut at some schools. The demographics have changed and schools with affluent preK families should not receive support from a program designed for low income families. I’m happy that DCPS is finally targeting the families that Head Start was designed to serve. PreK is not a compulsory grade and these affluent families should be thankful they’re even allowed to attend.

[Anonymous]

I like that I guessed that the troll was an instructional coach because of her random stressing of how important they are and then she doubled down on that point! 100% an instructional coach. Maybe worried about losing her job. Probably has some leaks from a friend in the central office m, but not actually in the know.

My T1’s PTA raises about $75K/year. Paying for a couple of extra buses is not that big a deal. More importantly, I don’t know any UMC parents who think the PK field trips requiring buses are important or a great idea anyway. My kids’ class went to a farm. It was a cute, fun day and a great idea if we’re actually talking about kids who don’t get out of the city. One kid started complaining that it wasn’t as good as Cox Farms and then another talked about some bouncy things at Great Country Farms and then another kid chimes in our Larrimers. Teacher asked how many kids had already been Apple/pumpkin picking that year; answer: all but 2, one of whose parent was there and is the room parent (definitely UMC). In short, the field trip was fun but possibly worthwhile for 1 child (don’t know his family circumstances).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like that I guessed that the troll was an instructional coach because of her random stressing of how important they are and then she doubled down on that point! 100% an instructional coach. Maybe worried about losing her job. Probably has some leaks from a friend in the central office m, but not actually in the know.

My T1’s PTA raises about $75K/year. Paying for a couple of extra buses is not that big a deal. More importantly, I don’t know any UMC parents who think the PK field trips requiring buses are important or a great idea anyway. My kids’ class went to a farm. It was a cute, fun day and a great idea if we’re actually talking about kids who don’t get out of the city. One kid started complaining that it wasn’t as good as Cox Farms and then another talked about some bouncy things at Great Country Farms and then another kid chimes in our Larrimers. Teacher asked how many kids had already been Apple/pumpkin picking that year; answer: all but 2, one of whose parent was there and is the room parent (definitely UMC). In short, the field trip was fun but possibly worthwhile for 1 child (don’t know his family circumstances).

None of the ECE instructional coaches will be losing their positions as they are all funded through Head Start. Which school are you from? I’m guessing Ludlow Taylor or Van Ness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like that I guessed that the troll was an instructional coach because of her random stressing of how important they are and then she doubled down on that point! 100% an instructional coach. Maybe worried about losing her job. Probably has some leaks from a friend in the central office m, but not actually in the know.

My T1’s PTA raises about $75K/year. Paying for a couple of extra buses is not that big a deal. More importantly, I don’t know any UMC parents who think the PK field trips requiring buses are important or a great idea anyway. My kids’ class went to a farm. It was a cute, fun day and a great idea if we’re actually talking about kids who don’t get out of the city. One kid started complaining that it wasn’t as good as Cox Farms and then another talked about some bouncy things at Great Country Farms and then another kid chimes in our Larrimers. Teacher asked how many kids had already been Apple/pumpkin picking that year; answer: all but 2, one of whose parent was there and is the room parent (definitely UMC). In short, the field trip was fun but possibly worthwhile for 1 child (don’t know his family circumstances).

This is what bothers me about the affluent parents. They complain about everything and are very ungrateful. Your child’s school wasn’t mandated to attend the trip and could have usually gone somewhere else. However, I see that the school accepted this trip that was entirely paid for through Head Start funds. Enough said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like that I guessed that the troll was an instructional coach because of her random stressing of how important they are and then she doubled down on that point! 100% an instructional coach. Maybe worried about losing her job. Probably has some leaks from a friend in the central office m, but not actually in the know.

My T1’s PTA raises about $75K/year. Paying for a couple of extra buses is not that big a deal. More importantly, I don’t know any UMC parents who think the PK field trips requiring buses are important or a great idea anyway. My kids’ class went to a farm. It was a cute, fun day and a great idea if we’re actually talking about kids who don’t get out of the city. One kid started complaining that it wasn’t as good as Cox Farms and then another talked about some bouncy things at Great Country Farms and then another kid chimes in our Larrimers. Teacher asked how many kids had already been Apple/pumpkin picking that year; answer: all but 2, one of whose parent was there and is the room parent (definitely UMC). In short, the field trip was fun but possibly worthwhile for 1 child (don’t know his family circumstances).

This is what bothers me about the affluent parents. They complain about everything and are very ungrateful. Your child’s school wasn’t mandated to attend the trip and could have usually gone somewhere else. However, I see that the school accepted this trip that was entirely paid for through Head Start funds. Enough said.

While I do think OP is spreading unsubstantiated information, I think it's funny how UMC parents want their free PreK 3/4 education, which is possible because of the low SES families in the community, but start to jump ship after K because their kids have to go to school with those same low SES kids that afforded them the opportunity to attend school at 3 in the first place.