Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am not sure that it is really tons easier to administratively do well at a more socioeconomically diverse title 1. You will have kids working at a lot of different ability levels. You will have sometimes difficult parents. You will have behavior issues in upper elementary school.
+1
I think there are difficulties either way. My child attends a Title 1 school that has attracted more UMC families in recent years. The principal has changed their messaging and tone on certain policies recently because some UMC families were overly vocal and demanding.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I get it: some schools have significantly higher percentages of at risk kids. So almost 1 in 3 children being at risk isn’t a “real” Title 1 to you. What is the minimum percentage to qualify as “real” to you?
No, because it falls below the 40% Title I threshold. Schools like John Lewis, Marie Reed and Garrison don’t need Title I funds any longer. Those funds should be given to schools in wards 7 and 8 where there is a real need. It would make things much more easier for the principals at those schools. And lots of affluent parents at schools like John Lewis constantly tout that they are at a Title I school, but the numbers of black children attending the school plummets every year. They only love the extra money coming into the school, but not the children and families who make the school eligible for Title I. Period.
What is the loophole that allows schools below the 40% threshold to keep their title 1 status?
There is no loophole. PP is conflating "at-risk" (a local DC legal term) with the poverty indicator used by U.S. Ed (and therefore OSSE) to determine Title I status. While there is a huge amount of overlap in these two categories, they are slightly different and you can qualify as a student in poverty under the Title I definition without qualifying as "at-risk".
You can see the 3 ways a student can qualify for free/reduced lunch (these are the students that determine Title I funding) on DCPS' site. https://dcps.dc.gov/farm
The first two categories would also qualify the student as "at-risk" (SNAP/TANF, foster care, homeless). However, not all students that qualify for free/reduced lunch under "income eligibility" would be "at-risk".
Lol idk about this year but you are wrong. I work at one of those schools and got a 10k bonus, that is ONLY available at title 1 schools.
But not all of them.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I get it: some schools have significantly higher percentages of at risk kids. So almost 1 in 3 children being at risk isn’t a “real” Title 1 to you. What is the minimum percentage to qualify as “real” to you?
No, because it falls below the 40% Title I threshold. Schools like John Lewis, Marie Reed and Garrison don’t need Title I funds any longer. Those funds should be given to schools in wards 7 and 8 where there is a real need. It would make things much more easier for the principals at those schools. And lots of affluent parents at schools like John Lewis constantly tout that they are at a Title I school, but the numbers of black children attending the school plummets every year. They only love the extra money coming into the school, but not the children and families who make the school eligible for Title I. Period.
What is the loophole that allows schools below the 40% threshold to keep their title 1 status?
There is no loophole. PP is conflating "at-risk" (a local DC legal term) with the poverty indicator used by U.S. Ed (and therefore OSSE) to determine Title I status. While there is a huge amount of overlap in these two categories, they are slightly different and you can qualify as a student in poverty under the Title I definition without qualifying as "at-risk".
You can see the 3 ways a student can qualify for free/reduced lunch (these are the students that determine Title I funding) on DCPS' site. https://dcps.dc.gov/farm
The first two categories would also qualify the student as "at-risk" (SNAP/TANF, foster care, homeless). However, not all students that qualify for free/reduced lunch under "income eligibility" would be "at-risk".
Lol idk about this year but you are wrong. I work at one of those schools and got a 10k bonus, that is ONLY available at title 1 schools.
Anonymous wrote:I am not sure that it is really tons easier to administratively do well at a more socioeconomically diverse title 1. You will have kids working at a lot of different ability levels. You will have sometimes difficult parents. You will have behavior issues in upper elementary school.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I get it: some schools have significantly higher percentages of at risk kids. So almost 1 in 3 children being at risk isn’t a “real” Title 1 to you. What is the minimum percentage to qualify as “real” to you?
No, because it falls below the 40% Title I threshold. Schools like John Lewis, Marie Reed and Garrison don’t need Title I funds any longer. Those funds should be given to schools in wards 7 and 8 where there is a real need. It would make things much more easier for the principals at those schools. And lots of affluent parents at schools like John Lewis constantly tout that they are at a Title I school, but the numbers of black children attending the school plummets every year. They only love the extra money coming into the school, but not the children and families who make the school eligible for Title I. Period.
What is the loophole that allows schools below the 40% threshold to keep their title 1 status?
There is no loophole. PP is conflating "at-risk" (a local DC legal term) with the poverty indicator used by U.S. Ed (and therefore OSSE) to determine Title I status. While there is a huge amount of overlap in these two categories, they are slightly different and you can qualify as a student in poverty under the Title I definition without qualifying as "at-risk".
You can see the 3 ways a student can qualify for free/reduced lunch (these are the students that determine Title I funding) on DCPS' site. https://dcps.dc.gov/farm
The first two categories would also qualify the student as "at-risk" (SNAP/TANF, foster care, homeless). However, not all students that qualify for free/reduced lunch under "income eligibility" would be "at-risk".
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I get it: some schools have significantly higher percentages of at risk kids. So almost 1 in 3 children being at risk isn’t a “real” Title 1 to you. What is the minimum percentage to qualify as “real” to you?
No, because it falls below the 40% Title I threshold. Schools like John Lewis, Marie Reed and Garrison don’t need Title I funds any longer. Those funds should be given to schools in wards 7 and 8 where there is a real need. It would make things much more easier for the principals at those schools. And lots of affluent parents at schools like John Lewis constantly tout that they are at a Title I school, but the numbers of black children attending the school plummets every year. They only love the extra money coming into the school, but not the children and families who make the school eligible for Title I. Period.
What is the loophole that allows schools below the 40% threshold to keep their title 1 status?
There is no loophole. PP is conflating "at-risk" (a local DC legal term) with the poverty indicator used by U.S. Ed (and therefore OSSE) to determine Title I status. While there is a huge amount of overlap in these two categories, they are slightly different and you can qualify as a student in poverty under the Title I definition without qualifying as "at-risk".
You can see the 3 ways a student can qualify for free/reduced lunch (these are the students that determine Title I funding) on DCPS' site. https://dcps.dc.gov/farm
The first two categories would also qualify the student as "at-risk" (SNAP/TANF, foster care, homeless). However, not all students that qualify for free/reduced lunch under "income eligibility" would be "at-risk".
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I get it: some schools have significantly higher percentages of at risk kids. So almost 1 in 3 children being at risk isn’t a “real” Title 1 to you. What is the minimum percentage to qualify as “real” to you?
No, because it falls below the 40% Title I threshold. Schools like John Lewis, Marie Reed and Garrison don’t need Title I funds any longer. Those funds should be given to schools in wards 7 and 8 where there is a real need. It would make things much more easier for the principals at those schools. And lots of affluent parents at schools like John Lewis constantly tout that they are at a Title I school, but the numbers of black children attending the school plummets every year. They only love the extra money coming into the school, but not the children and families who make the school eligible for Title I. Period.
What is the loophole that allows schools below the 40% threshold to keep their title 1 status?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I get it: some schools have significantly higher percentages of at risk kids. So almost 1 in 3 children being at risk isn’t a “real” Title 1 to you. What is the minimum percentage to qualify as “real” to you?
No, because it falls below the 40% Title I threshold. Schools like John Lewis, Marie Reed and Garrison don’t need Title I funds any longer. Those funds should be given to schools in wards 7 and 8 where there is a real need. It would make things much more easier for the principals at those schools. And lots of affluent parents at schools like John Lewis constantly tout that they are at a Title I school, but the numbers of black children attending the school plummets every year. They only love the extra money coming into the school, but not the children and families who make the school eligible for Title I. Period.
Anonymous wrote:I get it: some schools have significantly higher percentages of at risk kids. So almost 1 in 3 children being at risk isn’t a “real” Title 1 to you. What is the minimum percentage to qualify as “real” to you?
Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the distinction between “real” and “unreal” Title 1 schools. Can you be more specific?