Anonymous
01/23/2013 13:10
Subject: Are we fools not to play lottery for our 3 y o?
I guess we will agree to disagree. Your premise is that the most disadvantaged families are using the OOB and charter lotteries successfully at the PS3 level. I'm not sure how to measure that. I would think that their choices are primarily driven by transportation, but I am certainly not an expert.
I guess I will have to become an expert, though, when I open up my awesome K-entry charter school!
I guess I will have to become an expert, though, when I open up my awesome K-entry charter school!
Anonymous
01/23/2013 13:00
Subject: Are we fools not to play lottery for our 3 y o?
Anonymous wrote:Not everyone has to start over. If you're at your IB school for PS3 and PS4, whether it's Brent or Takoma or wherever, you stay there because it's your school of right. If you want to lottery out, you do it at K. It would just move the critical lottery year out to kindergarten instead of PS3. I'm sure you aren't suggesting that Appletree parents are not bonded to or committed to their school just because their kids won't be there past PK4.
That way the folks who want to keep their kids home, or whose kids are not ready because they are delayed or they have a late birthday or whatever, can do so. Families who don't need the "free daycare" aspect don't have to take up resources for PS3 and PS4 that they don't really need. Working families can send their kids to IB schools or lottery into a PS3 or PK4 spot OOB or in a charter school, with the understanding that they will have to lottery again at K.
No need to get angry about it--it's just a discussion point. As mentioned many times before, the universal PS3 and PK4 was originally meant to help boost the achievement and school readiness for all of DC's kids and has been a lifesaver for families who work and/or can't afford high-quality daycare. The unintended consequence was what has been expressed many times: pushing kids and families into the system before they really need or want to be.
You know, there are many of us who send our kids to public preschool because we think it's the right schooling choice not because we want or need "free daycare". My kids go to PS at 3 because I value early childhood education for both the academics and social/emotional growth and want them to start at 3. But I would never in a million years trust those critical years of schooling to my IB school. Under your plan I would either have to lottery twice or pay for preschool, both of which I would do. But I reject the false assumption that parents who send their kids to public preschool only do so because they want free care for their kids.
Anonymous
01/23/2013 12:53
Subject: Re:Are we fools not to play lottery for our 3 y o?
The problem with your ^^ frame of this PP is that the majority of families this was set up for would be greatly disrupted and disadvantaged if the lottery year became K. It would be disrupting the majority to better serve the advantaged much smaller % and it stinks. You are using great PR language to make it sound like 1) it would only inconvenience a few and 2) it would be great for most. Utter bullshit. It would way disproportionately hurt the majority of the families it was set up to serve by disrupting them and making them do 2 lotteries... All to allow privileged families like yours and mine to have better choices.
Spraying nice-smelling language over it doesn't change that bottom line, and it's eloquent privileged people like you who keep cheating the underserved out of the resources intended for them once those resources actually start to improve. Framing your proposal as if hardly anyone wpuld be harmed is a real example of that.
Spraying nice-smelling language over it doesn't change that bottom line, and it's eloquent privileged people like you who keep cheating the underserved out of the resources intended for them once those resources actually start to improve. Framing your proposal as if hardly anyone wpuld be harmed is a real example of that.
Anonymous
01/23/2013 12:53
Subject: Re:Are we fools not to play lottery for our 3 y o?
The problem with your ^^ frame of this PP is that the majority of families this was set up for would be greatly disrupted and disadvantaged if the lottery year became K. It would be disrupting the majority to better serve the advantaged much smaller % and it stinks. You are using great PR language to make it sound like 1) it would only inconvenience a few and 2) it would be great for most. Utter bullshit. It would way disproportionately hurt the majority of the families it was set up to serve by disrupting them and making them do 2 lotteries... All to allow privileged families like yours and mine to have better choices.
Spraying nice-smelling language over it doesn't change that bottom line, and it's eloquent privileged people like you who keep cheating the underserved out of the resources intended for them once those resources actually start to improve. Framing your proposal as if hardly anyone wpuld be harmed is a real example of that.
Spraying nice-smelling language over it doesn't change that bottom line, and it's eloquent privileged people like you who keep cheating the underserved out of the resources intended for them once those resources actually start to improve. Framing your proposal as if hardly anyone wpuld be harmed is a real example of that.
Anonymous
01/23/2013 12:32
Subject: Are we fools not to play lottery for our 3 y o?
Not everyone has to start over. If you're at your IB school for PS3 and PS4, whether it's Brent or Takoma or wherever, you stay there because it's your school of right. If you want to lottery out, you do it at K. It would just move the critical lottery year out to kindergarten instead of PS3. I'm sure you aren't suggesting that Appletree parents are not bonded to or committed to their school just because their kids won't be there past PK4.
That way the folks who want to keep their kids home, or whose kids are not ready because they are delayed or they have a late birthday or whatever, can do so. Families who don't need the "free daycare" aspect don't have to take up resources for PS3 and PS4 that they don't really need. Working families can send their kids to IB schools or lottery into a PS3 or PK4 spot OOB or in a charter school, with the understanding that they will have to lottery again at K.
No need to get angry about it--it's just a discussion point. As mentioned many times before, the universal PS3 and PK4 was originally meant to help boost the achievement and school readiness for all of DC's kids and has been a lifesaver for families who work and/or can't afford high-quality daycare. The unintended consequence was what has been expressed many times: pushing kids and families into the system before they really need or want to be.
That way the folks who want to keep their kids home, or whose kids are not ready because they are delayed or they have a late birthday or whatever, can do so. Families who don't need the "free daycare" aspect don't have to take up resources for PS3 and PS4 that they don't really need. Working families can send their kids to IB schools or lottery into a PS3 or PK4 spot OOB or in a charter school, with the understanding that they will have to lottery again at K.
No need to get angry about it--it's just a discussion point. As mentioned many times before, the universal PS3 and PK4 was originally meant to help boost the achievement and school readiness for all of DC's kids and has been a lifesaver for families who work and/or can't afford high-quality daycare. The unintended consequence was what has been expressed many times: pushing kids and families into the system before they really need or want to be.
Anonymous
01/23/2013 12:25
Subject: Are we fools not to play lottery for our 3 y o?
Anonymous wrote:I was the charter parent who proposed the startover lottery at K. Let me reiterate that I am IN the system at a desirable charter school, so this is not a selfish proposal on my part. I agree strongly with the "stressed" poster (who I think had a reasonable reaction to the turn that the thread was taking) that there should be options that:
1) provide PS3 and PS4 for low-income and working families
2) AND provide a reasonable entry point for K families
I never suggested that we screw over "working class families who need PS and PK. What I suggested was that we provide a reasonable entry point for K families that don't require people to force their kids in at 3. A K lottery would mean that the big "do or die" year for the lottery would be K instead of PS3 and PS4. What would be the big deal about that? Everyone could send their kid to Appletree or their local Ludlow-Taylor or Miner or whatever works for them in PS3 and PK4, and then start the lottery for their "forever" schools at K.
This would eliminate the crush at PS3 since there seem to be more than a few of us who'd like to keep their kids home that year and push the lottery to K, which is already a year in which there is a ton of movement as families leave the city for the suburbs, move their kids to private schools, or leave their daycare for their inbounds schools.
The only people who would be "losers" in this group, would be people like me, whose kids already lotteried into a coveted charter or OOB school. I think we all agree that this is small group.
I don't think this would work unless the schools radically changed their programs. Most of the charters, especially the immersion, want continuity in students so that the students will embrace and understand the learning style used by the school. I imagine LAMB would not want to provide two years of Montessori then give up those kids and start over with fresh kids with no Montessori experience at K. This would be especially problematic for immersion schools. Maybe if each school just had a preschool academy of sorts that was not connected to its mission, but what would be the point of that?
Anonymous
01/23/2013 12:11
Subject: Are we fools not to play lottery for our 3 y o?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: Oh, except also the MAJORITY of famolies who need pre-s/pre-k would have their lids lottery into, settle in, and connect/form relationships with their school and then have to start all over again for K. But heck, if doing that provides a "reasonable entry point" for advantaged families who don't need/want K, we won't count them as losers cuz hey, we're winning!
Nope, no losers worth mentionong in that scenario...
PP you are the epitome of "entitled". That reasoning right there is the definition in action. And it's disgusting.
I am not the PP, but you are absolutely crazy if you think that the majority of families in PS3 have settled inc and formed relationships with their schools. At our charter, people were dropping out left and right during the first few weeks of school, and everyone who stayed is frantically trying to lottery into something else for next year. Perhaps you are the entitled one who never had to do the lotteries.
Don't be absurd. What happens several weeks into Pre-s is not what I'm talking about. We all know there's a lot f switching the 1st month of school. Its about kids once the schoolyear is well underway who stay and bond until the end of Pre-s and pre-k that this about. What drugs are you taking if you think the MAJORITY of kids switch from the school they're in from year to year? What statistics are you looking at? It's ridiculous to assert that even close to the ajority of kids are changing schools from pre-k to k. Yes there is plenty of movement, but the majority of students stay in place. And to make EVERYONEsstart over for those not starting until k is exactly screwing working class families.
Anonymous
01/23/2013 11:51
Subject: Are we fools not to play lottery for our 3 y o?
Anonymous wrote: Oh, except also the MAJORITY of famolies who need pre-s/pre-k would have their lids lottery into, settle in, and connect/form relationships with their school and then have to start all over again for K. But heck, if doing that provides a "reasonable entry point" for advantaged families who don't need/want K, we won't count them as losers cuz hey, we're winning!
Nope, no losers worth mentionong in that scenario...
PP you are the epitome of "entitled". That reasoning right there is the definition in action. And it's disgusting.
I am not the PP, but you are absolutely crazy if you think that the majority of families in PS3 have settled in and formed relationships with their schools. At our charter, people were dropping out left and right during the first few weeks of school, and everyone who stayed is frantically trying to lottery into something else for next year. Perhaps you are the entitled one who never had to do the lotteries.
Anonymous
01/23/2013 11:46
Subject: Re:Are we fools not to play lottery for our 3 y o?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For those wishing there were great school slots that only opened for K, here's an idea: stop complaining and start one! Every single kne of the coveted charter school slots you're all sweating to get into was started by parents/teachers/adults who saw a need that was important to them to fill. Follow the model expectand start ypur brilliamt K-whatever school! But please dont expect anyone to limit slots for already-enrolled kids to move into K just to suit your ideal parenting set up.
See, this is the kind of attitude that always trumps everything on DCUM. The system worked for me! Don't change anything that might improve access for others at my expense! Who cares about the needs of other families?
Right, because crapping on the vast majority of families the public school system was created to serve is such a great demonstration of caring for the needs of families.
Anonymous
01/23/2013 11:43
Subject: Are we fools not to play lottery for our 3 y o?
Anonymous wrote:I was the charter parent who proposed the startover lottery at K. Let me reiterate that I am IN the system at a desirable charter school, so this is not a selfish proposal on my part. I agree strongly with the "stressed" poster (who I think had a reasonable reaction to the turn that the thread was taking) that there should be options that:
1) provide PS3 and PS4 for low-income and working families
2) AND provide a reasonable entry point for K families
I never suggested that we screw over "working class families who need PS and PK. What I suggested was that we provide a reasonable entry point for K families that don't require people to force their kids in at 3. A K lottery would mean that the big "do or die" year for the lottery would be K instead of PS3 and PS4. What would be the big deal about that? Everyone could send their kid to Appletree or their local Ludlow-Taylor or Miner or whatever works for them in PS3 and PK4, and then start the lottery for their "forever" schools at K.
This would eliminate the crush at PS3 since there seem to be more than a few of us who'd like to keep their kids home that year and push the lottery to K, which is already a year in which there is a ton of movement as families leave the city for the suburbs, move their kids to private schools, or leave their daycare for their inbounds schools.
The only people who would be "losers" in this group, would be people like me, whose kids already lotteried into a coveted charter or OOB school. I think we all agree that this is small group.
Right, those would be the only losers! Oh, except also the MAJORITY of famolies who need pre-s/pre-k would have their lids lottery into, settle in, and connect/form relationships with their school and then have to start all over again for K. But heck, if doing that provides a "reasonable entry point" for advantaged families who don't need/want K, we won't count them as losers cuz hey, we're winning!
Nope, no losers worth mentionong in that scenario...
PP you are the epitome of "entitled". That reasoning right there is the definition in action. And it's disgusting.
Anonymous
01/23/2013 11:41
Subject: Re:Are we fools not to play lottery for our 3 y o?
Anonymous wrote:For those wishing there were great school slots that only opened for K, here's an idea: stop complaining and start one! Every single kne of the coveted charter school slots you're all sweating to get into was started by parents/teachers/adults who saw a need that was important to them to fill. Follow the model expectand start ypur brilliamt K-whatever school! But please dont expect anyone to limit slots for already-enrolled kids to move into K just to suit your ideal parenting set up.
See, this is the kind of attitude that always trumps everything on DCUM. The system worked for me! Don't change anything that might improve access for others at my expense! Who cares about the needs of other families?
Anonymous
01/23/2013 11:35
Subject: Re:Are we fools not to play lottery for our 3 y o?
For those wishing there were great school slots that only opened for K, here's an idea: stop complaining and start one! Every single kne of the coveted charter school slots you're all sweating to get into was started by parents/teachers/adults who saw a need that was important to them to fill. Follow the model expectand start ypur brilliamt K-whatever school! But please dont expect anyone to limit slots for already-enrolled kids to move into K just to suit your ideal parenting set up.
Anonymous
01/23/2013 11:25
Subject: Are we fools not to play lottery for our 3 y o?
I was the charter parent who proposed the startover lottery at K. Let me reiterate that I am IN the system at a desirable charter school, so this is not a selfish proposal on my part. I agree strongly with the "stressed" poster (who I think had a reasonable reaction to the turn that the thread was taking) that there should be options that:
1) provide PS3 and PS4 for low-income and working families
2) AND provide a reasonable entry point for K families
I never suggested that we screw over "working class families who need PS and PK. What I suggested was that we provide a reasonable entry point for K families that don't require people to force their kids in at 3. A K lottery would mean that the big "do or die" year for the lottery would be K instead of PS3 and PS4. What would be the big deal about that? Everyone could send their kid to Appletree or their local Ludlow-Taylor or Miner or whatever works for them in PS3 and PK4, and then start the lottery for their "forever" schools at K.
This would eliminate the crush at PS3 since there seem to be more than a few of us who'd like to keep their kids home that year and push the lottery to K, which is already a year in which there is a ton of movement as families leave the city for the suburbs, move their kids to private schools, or leave their daycare for their inbounds schools.
The only people who would be "losers" in this group, would be people like me, whose kids already lotteried into a coveted charter or OOB school. I think we all agree that this is small group.
1) provide PS3 and PS4 for low-income and working families
2) AND provide a reasonable entry point for K families
I never suggested that we screw over "working class families who need PS and PK. What I suggested was that we provide a reasonable entry point for K families that don't require people to force their kids in at 3. A K lottery would mean that the big "do or die" year for the lottery would be K instead of PS3 and PS4. What would be the big deal about that? Everyone could send their kid to Appletree or their local Ludlow-Taylor or Miner or whatever works for them in PS3 and PK4, and then start the lottery for their "forever" schools at K.
This would eliminate the crush at PS3 since there seem to be more than a few of us who'd like to keep their kids home that year and push the lottery to K, which is already a year in which there is a ton of movement as families leave the city for the suburbs, move their kids to private schools, or leave their daycare for their inbounds schools.
The only people who would be "losers" in this group, would be people like me, whose kids already lotteried into a coveted charter or OOB school. I think we all agree that this is small group.
Anonymous
01/23/2013 11:25
Subject: Re:Are we fools not to play lottery for our 3 y o?
It's always good to open up a dialogue about something that concerns you. Already said you have every righf to complain. But I'm still pointing out that whatever your concerns are, the uh are yours and they are valid, but they are mainly the concerns of a population that do NOT represent the target population of public schools. If there is a solution to your problem that does not DISadvantage underserved families and students, great. But your kid's enrollment in a DC public school is only a right for your inbound school; other than that even holding K spots for parents who are NOT underserved (which would still mean parents who enrolled in earlier grades get screwed for those slots) goes against the reason any of us even have the option for free schools in DC.
Anonymous
01/23/2013 11:15
Subject: Are we fools not to play lottery for our 3 y o?
Why do you care so much whether your child naps at home or at school? That is the real difference between part-time and full-day school.