Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the schools mentioned (e.g., Langdon, Langley, Burroughs) *may* have enough affluent ECE families that the school's ECE program should no longer qualify for Head Start. But, at these schools, in particular, there is a very low proportion of affluent kids in grades K - 5. I've been trying to think about whether removing Head Start at those schools will have a negative impact on the school's over all quality or progress. For instance, if a school does not have Head Start, the economically disadvantaged kids in ECE may not receive the same services they would have under Head Start, setting them up for more difficulties in later grades and creating a student body that is less positioned to learn and grow.

Another negative consequence of losing Head Start might be that affluent families--whose kids tend to score better on standardized tests, and who can more easily donate time and/or money to the school--will be less inclined to send their kids to the school.

To me (not that it matters!), it's worth considering these negative consequences of losing Head Start in the schools where there is a high proportion of economically disadvantaged K - 5 students, even if ECE is affluent.

The same thing applies to Marie Reed ES. PreK and K are affluent but the rest of the school is not.

I don't understand where everyone goes. There are jot enough empty seats at higher demand charters or dcps school for all theses Prk to just bailout. Are that many folks really flipping to private?? If so they can afford to stay in private for Prk.

Are more low income families keep their kids at home? How are K+ schools staying full in the upper grade but jot completely full with low income from the start?

The lottery does need to be written for low income to get 25% or more of each grade to have priority for low income.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the schools mentioned (e.g., Langdon, Langley, Burroughs) *may* have enough affluent ECE families that the school's ECE program should no longer qualify for Head Start. But, at these schools, in particular, there is a very low proportion of affluent kids in grades K - 5. I've been trying to think about whether removing Head Start at those schools will have a negative impact on the school's over all quality or progress. For instance, if a school does not have Head Start, the economically disadvantaged kids in ECE may not receive the same services they would have under Head Start, setting them up for more difficulties in later grades and creating a student body that is less positioned to learn and grow.

Another negative consequence of losing Head Start might be that affluent families--whose kids tend to score better on standardized tests, and who can more easily donate time and/or money to the school--will be less inclined to send their kids to the school.

To me (not that it matters!), it's worth considering these negative consequences of losing Head Start in the schools where there is a high proportion of economically disadvantaged K - 5 students, even if ECE is affluent.

The same thing applies to Marie Reed ES. PreK and K are affluent but the rest of the school is not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the schools mentioned (e.g., Langdon, Langley, Burroughs) *may* have enough affluent ECE families that the school's ECE program should no longer qualify for Head Start. But, at these schools, in particular, there is a very low proportion of affluent kids in grades K - 5. I've been trying to think about whether removing Head Start at those schools will have a negative impact on the school's over all quality or progress. For instance, if a school does not have Head Start, the economically disadvantaged kids in ECE may not receive the same services they would have under Head Start, setting them up for more difficulties in later grades and creating a student body that is less positioned to learn and grow.

Another negative consequence of losing Head Start might be that affluent families--whose kids tend to score better on standardized tests, and who can more easily donate time and/or money to the school--will be less inclined to send their kids to the school.

To me (not that it matters!), it's worth considering these negative consequences of losing Head Start in the schools where there is a high proportion of economically disadvantaged K - 5 students, even if ECE is affluent.

Maybe on some points above but the point of Head Start is not subsidizing K-5. It’s ECE services and curriculum where the money should be directed towards. If there is a significant number of middle class kids in ECE then they should not get the funding. Period.

If schools are using it towards other things besides ECE, then they are not using it appropriately.

Your argument would not have any weight with the feds.

My point wasn't that schools are using Head Start money on things other than ECE--it was about whether there are indirect positive effects of Head Start on the remainder of the school's (economically disadvantaged) population. You're right that this isn't part of the criteria for a school to receive Head Start. I just wanted to point out that the situation is more complex than previous posters have stated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the schools mentioned (e.g., Langdon, Langley, Burroughs) *may* have enough affluent ECE families that the school's ECE program should no longer qualify for Head Start. But, at these schools, in particular, there is a very low proportion of affluent kids in grades K - 5. I've been trying to think about whether removing Head Start at those schools will have a negative impact on the school's over all quality or progress. For instance, if a school does not have Head Start, the economically disadvantaged kids in ECE may not receive the same services they would have under Head Start, setting them up for more difficulties in later grades and creating a student body that is less positioned to learn and grow.

Another negative consequence of losing Head Start might be that affluent families--whose kids tend to score better on standardized tests, and who can more easily donate time and/or money to the school--will be less inclined to send their kids to the school.

To me (not that it matters!), it's worth considering these negative consequences of losing Head Start in the schools where there is a high proportion of economically disadvantaged K - 5 students, even if ECE is affluent.

Maybe on some points above but the point of Head Start is not subsidizing K-5. It’s ECE services and curriculum where the money should be directed towards. If there is a significant number of middle class kids in ECE then they should not get the funding. Period.

If schools are using it towards other things besides ECE, then they are not using it appropriately.

Your argument would not have any weight with the feds.

Anonymous wrote:Some of the schools mentioned (e.g., Langdon, Langley, Burroughs) *may* have enough affluent ECE families that the school's ECE program should no longer qualify for Head Start. But, at these schools, in particular, there is a very low proportion of affluent kids in grades K - 5. I've been trying to think about whether removing Head Start at those schools will have a negative impact on the school's over all quality or progress. For instance, if a school does not have Head Start, the economically disadvantaged kids in ECE may not receive the same services they would have under Head Start, setting them up for more difficulties in later grades and creating a student body that is less positioned to learn and grow.

Another negative consequence of losing Head Start might be that affluent families--whose kids tend to score better on standardized tests, and who can more easily donate time and/or money to the school--will be less inclined to send their kids to the school.

To me (not that it matters!), it's worth considering these negative consequences of losing Head Start in the schools where there is a high proportion of economically disadvantaged K - 5 students, even if ECE is affluent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any concrete info that DC may consider eliminating preK3, or giving an at risk preference?

Read the mySchoolDC board minutes, they are talking about piloting it at the new Francis Steves zero-to-three center.

Where is the new Francis-Stevens going to be? Is there more information available somewhere? Just curious to learn more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any concrete info that DC may consider eliminating preK3, or giving an at risk preference?

Read the mySchoolDC board minutes, they are talking about piloting it at the new Francis Steves zero-to-three center.

Anonymous wrote:Some of the schools mentioned (e.g., Langdon, Langley, Burroughs) *may* have enough affluent ECE families that the school's ECE program should no longer qualify for Head Start. But, at these schools, in particular, there is a very low proportion of affluent kids in grades K - 5. I've been trying to think about whether removing Head Start at those schools will have a negative impact on the school's over all quality or progress. For instance, if a school does not have Head Start, the economically disadvantaged kids in ECE may not receive the same services they would have under Head Start, setting them up for more difficulties in later grades and creating a student body that is less positioned to learn and grow.

Another negative consequence of losing Head Start might be that affluent families--whose kids tend to score better on standardized tests, and who can more easily donate time and/or money to the school--will be less inclined to send their kids to the school.

To me (not that it matters!), it's worth considering these negative consequences of losing Head Start in the schools where there is a high proportion of economically disadvantaged K - 5 students, even if ECE is affluent.

Anonymous wrote:Is there any concrete info that DC may consider eliminating preK3, or giving an at risk preference?

Anonymous wrote:

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.