Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is there any discussion on reducing the number of PrK4 classes to gain a classroom or 2?

They absolutely should be discussing this. Obviously what Janney needs most is space. Best was to gain it is by jettisoning the non-required grade.

They get about twice as much money per PK student as they do K and up. This is why they keep the 4 classes.

That is not true. Here are the current funding levels from the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula:

PK3- $12,719
PK4- $12,340
K- $12,340
1-5- $ 9,492

As you can see, there is actually no difference in funding levels between PK4 and K. And the increase from first grade funding to PK4 is 30%- a good amount, yes, but not even close to "about twice as much".

The extra staffing required for PK classes just about balances out the increased funding per student.

I am not sure where these numbers are coming from, but Janney, and Deal, get the minimum allocation per student annually which is $8992. This allocation includes PPFM (per pupil minimum funds), which DCPS adds to a school budget after they set the total budget to make sure the allocation is up to the minimum. So some schools certainly get more per student, but the numbers above are presented in a cut and dry way. This is not the case.
For the budges for each school for 16-17 see http://www.dcpsdatacenter.com/fy17_initial.html

"So in summary -
during the open house there was no discussion on changes that may be forthcoming to support a smaller class sizes[/b]

Exactly. The large classes were presented in a rosy manner "look at these low ratios!".
NOTHING was said about reducing the size of them.
If you're in Janney, be prepared for your child to have a class of 30+ kids from 3rd grade on.
I'd be a lot that nothing will be done to fix it.

Your child doesn't do well being 1 of 32 in a class? Pony up for private school."

False. That's not what she said. What she was that the question of how to manage the extra-large 2nd and 3rd grades for next year was not yet decided because they were only 1/2 way through this year and felt that it was too early to have good information on which to base the decision for next year. So the plan is to make the decision in a few months, after a more thorough evaluation and discussion, to include the parents.

I'm the "bitchy" first responder to OP, and this thread is exactly why my response to her was to ask her questions and deal with the issue through the means set up by the school community. I knew the thread would open the door to a whole bunch of anti-Janney responders, most of whom are not even in the community and are just throwing jabs or making up stories about the school . . . for whatever reasons make them tick. And I questioned whether OP legitimately thought that DCUMs was a good source of information, or whether she was trying to stir the pot because she's angry.

Anonymous wrote:Wow.

I love Janney. My kids love it too. I like the parents. Everyone seems nice enough. Who are you people with such anger?

As someone who would benefit from pk-4, I'd love to have it but agree that it seems like losing those would be better.

Personally, I'd advocate for:

- no pk
- some IB enforcement
- trailers over the garden

Do that and problem solved.

Plus one here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]So in summary -
during the open house there was no discussion on changes that may be forthcoming to support a smaller class sizes[/b]

Exactly. The large classes were presented in a rosy manner "look at these low ratios!".
NOTHING was said about reducing the size of them.
If you're in Janney, be prepared for your child to have a class of 30+ kids from 3rd grade on.
I'd be a lot that nothing will be done to fix it.

Your child doesn't do well being 1 of 32 in a class? Pony up for private school.

This. I grew up with 35 kids in a class in elementary, with one teacher and no aides, and I did just fine.

there were probably no child with learning differences in your classroom - and if it was Catholic school no discipline issues b/c no one would dare.

No, regular public school in a nice neighborhood. 30 years ago though.

Wow.

I love Janney. My kids love it too. I like the parents. Everyone seems nice enough. Who are you people with such anger?

As someone who would benefit from pk-4, I'd love to have it but agree that it seems like losing those would be better.

Personally, I'd advocate for:

- no pk
- some IB enforcement
- trailers over the garden

Do that and problem solved.

Yes, the year they added a 4th preK class, every single spot in the existing 3 classes had been filled with siblings. That's what they told us parents who were on the waitlist (or whatever you call it) that year. We still didn't get in... (In bounds.)

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]What's crazy is that the prior principal added a PK classroom last year ('14-15) rather than look ahead to what the current 3rd grade class would look like.

[/quote]

I'm guessing because the current Janney parents with rising PreKers were a bug in her ear...the added class was filled almost exclusively with siblings of current IB students. As much as people liked that principal, she showed she could be brow beaten into making a decision that was bad for the school and created additional problems down the road.[/quote]

My understanding was that what drove the addition of the fourth prek in part was the desire to have pre k students that were not sibling preference to diversify the families in pre k so it was not exclusionary to new families. If you think that the previous principal was browbeaten into adding pre k by the parents I would love to understand your reasoning. Are you a parent who witnessed her caving to parent's whims willy nilly? My observations were that she was direct, had vision and did great things at the school, and that the parents who appreciated her actually appreciated the fact that she was not browbeaten into anything.

I also did NOT understand principal Lutz to be saying that everything was hunky dory with class size and they had decided to not change a thing. There were no decisions announced but she clearly referenced that they were considering space for additional classrooms. I support giving her the opportunity to come up with a plan rather than second guessing her before having heard it by thinking that I know best despite limited information.

I try not to read Janney threads but they become like car wrecks where you cannot look away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]So in summary -
during the open house there was no discussion on changes that may be forthcoming to support a smaller class sizes[/b]

Exactly. The large classes were presented in a rosy manner "look at these low ratios!".
NOTHING was said about reducing the size of them.
If you're in Janney, be prepared for your child to have a class of 30+ kids from 3rd grade on.
I'd be a lot that nothing will be done to fix it.

Your child doesn't do well being 1 of 32 in a class? Pony up for private school.

This. I grew up with 35 kids in a class in elementary, with one teacher and no aides, and I did just fine.

there were probably no child with learning differences in your classroom - and if it was Catholic school no discipline issues b/c no one would dare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]So in summary -
during the open house there was no discussion on changes that may be forthcoming to support a smaller class sizes[/b]

Exactly. The large classes were presented in a rosy manner "look at these low ratios!".
NOTHING was said about reducing the size of them.
If you're in Janney, be prepared for your child to have a class of 30+ kids from 3rd grade on.
I'd be a lot that nothing will be done to fix it.

Your child doesn't do well being 1 of 32 in a class? Pony up for private school.

This. I grew up with 35 kids in a class in elementary, with one teacher and no aides, and I did just fine.

What happens when DCPS starts enforcing the 10% "at risk" enrollment plan? 40 kids per classroom?!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]So in summary -
during the open house there was no discussion on changes that may be forthcoming to support a smaller class sizes[/b]

Exactly. The large classes were presented in a rosy manner "look at these low ratios!".
NOTHING was said about reducing the size of them.
If you're in Janney, be prepared for your child to have a class of 30+ kids from 3rd grade on.
I'd be a lot that nothing will be done to fix it.

Your child doesn't do well being 1 of 32 in a class? Pony up for private school.

This. I grew up with 35 kids in a class in elementary, with one teacher and no aides, and I did just fine.

Anonymous[b wrote:]So in summary -
during the open house there was no discussion on changes that may be forthcoming to support a smaller class sizes[/b]

Exactly. The large classes were presented in a rosy manner "look at these low ratios!".
NOTHING was said about reducing the size of them.
If you're in Janney, be prepared for your child to have a class of 30+ kids from 3rd grade on.
I'd be a lot that nothing will be done to fix it.

Your child doesn't do well being 1 of 32 in a class? Pony up for private school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all better make your voice heard before the lottery!

+1 and you need to make your voices heard individually because there are surely many current Janney parents, parents you consider friends, who are completely counting on pre-K for their younger child who are going to be just as loud saying that you can't cut pre-K because they were already counting on it. I personally think cutting pre-K is the best way forward but it will definitely create a lot of hard feelings among parents and will create tough staffing challenges ( for example, if a teacher is only licensed to teach early childhood education) so the principal would be well served by making a decision very quickly, as in now. And parents would be well served by making their voices heard today

I hope none of the people advocating for cutting pre-K have benefitted from it themselves in the past... That would be the apex of hypocrisy.

Don't be daft. PreK made sense when there was space, now there is not. We get it, you don't want to keep your child in the same childcare solution for another year, even if that's being at home with you or staying another year at another public school, but don't try and shame people into the right decision for NOW.

We can't afford St. Columba's, but thanks for trying to shame me for pointing out that it's easy to say for those whose kids are already in 3rd grade (or who have 200K+ HHIs).

OK, fixed it.

PP, why are you trying to prove that Janney parents are obnoxious? I agree with you that cutting Pre-k is probably the most feasible solution to alleviate overcrowding, but this post makes you sound like a douchebag.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all better make your voice heard before the lottery!

+1 and you need to make your voices heard individually because there are surely many current Janney parents, parents you consider friends, who are completely counting on pre-K for their younger child who are going to be just as loud saying that you can't cut pre-K because they were already counting on it. I personally think cutting pre-K is the best way forward but it will definitely create a lot of hard feelings among parents and will create tough staffing challenges ( for example, if a teacher is only licensed to teach early childhood education) so the principal would be well served by making a decision very quickly, as in now. And parents would be well served by making their voices heard today

I hope none of the people advocating for cutting pre-K have benefitted from it themselves in the past... That would be the apex of hypocrisy.

Don't be daft. PreK made sense when there was space, now there is not. We get it, you don't want to keep your child in the same childcare solution for another year, even if that's being at home with you or staying another year at another public school, but don't try and shame people into the right decision for NOW.

We can't afford St. Columba's, but thanks for trying to shame me for pointing out that it's easy to say for those whose kids are already in 3rd grade (or who have 200K+ HHIs).

OK, fixed it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all better make your voice heard before the lottery!

+1 and you need to make your voices heard individually because there are surely many current Janney parents, parents you consider friends, who are completely counting on pre-K for their younger child who are going to be just as loud saying that you can't cut pre-K because they were already counting on it. I personally think cutting pre-K is the best way forward but it will definitely create a lot of hard feelings among parents and will create tough staffing challenges ( for example, if a teacher is only licensed to teach early childhood education) so the principal would be well served by making a decision very quickly, as in now. And parents would be well served by making their voices heard today

I hope none of the people advocating for cutting pre-K have benefitted from it themselves in the past... That would be the apex of hypocrisy.

Don't be daft. PreK made sense when there was space, now there is not. We get it, you don't want to pay another year of tuition at St. Columba's but don't try and shame people into the right decision for NOW.

We can't afford St. Columba's, but thanks for trtying to shame me for pointing out that it's easy to say for those whose kids are already in 3rd grade (or who have 200K+ HHIs).

The bottom line is that four classes of pre-k is a very new phenomenon at Janney and pre-k is an optional year. The school needs to accommodate the students it is obligated to educate. You can do what legions of Janney parents before you have done and send your kid to private pre-k or lottery in to an oob/charter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all better make your voice heard before the lottery!

+1 and you need to make your voices heard individually because there are surely many current Janney parents, parents you consider friends, who are completely counting on pre-K for their younger child who are going to be just as loud saying that you can't cut pre-K because they were already counting on it. I personally think cutting pre-K is the best way forward but it will definitely create a lot of hard feelings among parents and will create tough staffing challenges ( for example, if a teacher is only licensed to teach early childhood education) so the principal would be well served by making a decision very quickly, as in now. And parents would be well served by making their voices heard today

I hope none of the people advocating for cutting pre-K have benefitted from it themselves in the past... That would be the apex of hypocrisy.

Don't be daft. PreK made sense when there was space, now there is not. We get it, you don't want to pay another year of tuition at St. Columba's but don't try and shame people into the right decision for NOW.

We can't afford St. Columba's, but thanks for trying to shame me for pointing out that it's easy to say for those whose kids are already in 3rd grade (or who have 200K+ HHIs).

Well, you better be entering the lottery for 11 other schools.

You bet we are. For Pre-K3.