Still curious how eliminating Pk3 eases demand. If they add another classroom at one grade level they open spots for enrollment that then get merged into one class. PK3 was already exclusively IB, so those families all have a right to enter at K so they are coming at some point.

There is some restricted income apartments in the Ross zone, so that’s one way that low income families are IB for Ross.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is fantastic. I hope all non-Title one schools follow suit. We should not be subsidizing a windfall for UMC parents. As a taxpayer, it is a much better investment to invest in wrap around services for children in poorer neighborhoods and circumstances.

FWIW there are families probably living near the poverty level at the school. But in general, I agree.

Agreed, but not that many and they can apply OOB, or soon will get a high subsidy from city for daycare. I say this as an UMC parent who pays a huge chunk for daycare every month - but I can afford to. I would rather the city take of poorer children -especially when there is so munch wingeing re: overcrowding.

+1. The kids in Ross PK3 in my experience were medium well off to very well off. You have to be to live in the catchement zone.

Exactly. I hope PP will come back and explain how multiple entires families live near the poverty level and rent or own in the handful of blocks between Dupont Circle and Logan Circle.

Unless they are Central Office OOB placements into Ross. But if they are, and PK3 is now gone, they'll just get placed elsewhere.

Which, I also agree, should be a priority. The UMC windfall of free daycare has always struck me as an odd conceit, as a long-time District resident who lived here before free daycare/preschool

There are a ton of apartments in the zone, PP. And there are many buildings that aren't luxury apartments. I can think of at least 3 right on 17th street and 1 on 16th street alone that have reasonable rent. Regular people in Dupont don't buy huge houses as soon as they have kids — they stay in those apartments and raise their kids. I'm not saying it's enough to warrant keeping PK3 (or even PK4), but don't act like every single kid has millionaire parents at Ross.

The federal poverty level for a family of three is $20,000. (For 4, $25k).

You’re not renting on 16th or 17th in 2018 with a HHI of $20,000, sorry. PP asserted that there are Ross a bunch of families “near the poverty line.” Quite a different claim than “some Ross families aren’t wealthy/affluent.”

It's not "a bunch" but there are absolutely low income families in the Ross boundary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is fantastic. I hope all non-Title one schools follow suit. We should not be subsidizing a windfall for UMC parents. As a taxpayer, it is a much better investment to invest in wrap around services for children in poorer neighborhoods and circumstances.

FWIW there are families probably living near the poverty level at the school. But in general, I agree.

Agreed, but not that many and they can apply OOB, or soon will get a high subsidy from city for daycare. I say this as an UMC parent who pays a huge chunk for daycare every month - but I can afford to. I would rather the city take of poorer children -especially when there is so munch wingeing re: overcrowding.

+1. The kids in Ross PK3 in my experience were medium well off to very well off. You have to be to live in the catchement zone.

Exactly. I hope PP will come back and explain how multiple entires families live near the poverty level and rent or own in the handful of blocks between Dupont Circle and Logan Circle.

Unless they are Central Office OOB placements into Ross. But if they are, and PK3 is now gone, they'll just get placed elsewhere.

Which, I also agree, should be a priority. The UMC windfall of free daycare has always struck me as an odd conceit, as a long-time District resident who lived here before free daycare/preschool

There are a ton of apartments in the zone, PP. And there are many buildings that aren't luxury apartments. I can think of at least 3 right on 17th street and 1 on 16th street alone that have reasonable rent. Regular people in Dupont don't buy huge houses as soon as they have kids — they stay in those apartments and raise their kids. I'm not saying it's enough to warrant keeping PK3 (or even PK4), but don't act like every single kid has millionaire parents at Ross.

The federal poverty level for a family of three is $20,000. (For 4, $25k).

You’re not renting on 16th or 17th in 2018 with a HHI of $20,000, sorry. PP asserted that there are Ross a bunch of families “near the poverty line.” Quite a different claim than “some Ross families aren’t wealthy/affluent.”

Anonymous wrote:That's a good decision as it had become PK3 exclusively for siblings anyway. The school is tiny and the K and 1st grade classes are huge.

Ross is one of the few schools that can afford to drop PK3.

In many elementary schools in DC, PK3 pulls in some of the parents that might otherwise send their kids to private schools. (And are thus fairly focused on education.)
But Ross upper grades are filled with kids who are already very focused on education.

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if that will bump up demand at Garrison?

Garrison may well soon be inbounds-only and very hard for out of bounds for PK if demand continues to rise.
2015-16: 14/35 out of bounds matched (rest were inbounds), 11 waitlisted.
2016-17: ?
2017-18: 4/37 out out bounds matched, 41 waitlisted. (6+ got in off the waitlist).
2018-19, 5/37 out of bounds matched, 60 waitlisted.

Out-of-bounds demand at Garrison is going up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is fantastic. I hope all non-Title one schools follow suit. We should not be subsidizing a windfall for UMC parents. As a taxpayer, it is a much better investment to invest in wrap around services for children in poorer neighborhoods and circumstances.

FWIW there are families probably living near the poverty level at the school. But in general, I agree.

Agreed, but not that many and they can apply OOB, or soon will get a high subsidy from city for daycare. I say this as an UMC parent who pays a huge chunk for daycare every month - but I can afford to. I would rather the city take of poorer children -especially when there is so munch wingeing re: overcrowding.

+1. The kids in Ross PK3 in my experience were medium well off to very well off. You have to be to live in the catchement zone.

Exactly. I hope PP will come back and explain how multiple entires families live near the poverty level and rent or own in the handful of blocks between Dupont Circle and Logan Circle.

Unless they are Central Office OOB placements into Ross. But if they are, and PK3 is now gone, they'll just get placed elsewhere.

Which, I also agree, should be a priority. The UMC windfall of free daycare has always struck me as an odd conceit, as a long-time District resident who lived here before free daycare/preschool

There are a ton of apartments in the zone, PP. And there are many buildings that aren't luxury apartments. I can think of at least 3 right on 17th street and 1 on 16th street alone that have reasonable rent. Regular people in Dupont don't buy huge houses as soon as they have kids — they stay in those apartments and raise their kids. I'm not saying it's enough to warrant keeping PK3 (or even PK4), but don't act like every single kid has millionaire parents at Ross.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is fantastic. I hope all non-Title one schools follow suit. We should not be subsidizing a windfall for UMC parents. As a taxpayer, it is a much better investment to invest in wrap around services for children in poorer neighborhoods and circumstances.

FWIW there are families probably living near the poverty level at the school. But in general, I agree.

Agreed, but not that many and they can apply OOB, or soon will get a high subsidy from city for daycare. I say this as an UMC parent who pays a huge chunk for daycare every month - but I can afford to. I would rather the city take of poorer children -especially when there is so munch wingeing re: overcrowding.

+1. The kids in Ross PK3 in my experience were medium well off to very well off. You have to be to live in the catchement zone.

Exactly. I hope PP will come back and explain how multiple entires families live near the poverty level and rent or own in the handful of blocks between Dupont Circle and Logan Circle.

Unless they are Central Office OOB placements into Ross. But if they are, and PK3 is now gone, they'll just get placed elsewhere.

Which, I also agree, should be a priority. The UMC windfall of free daycare has always struck me as an odd conceit, as a long-time District resident who lived here before free daycare/preschool

Yes, getting in was like winning the lottery. It is sad they are getting rid of a successful program.

Anonymous wrote:Teachers were also complaining that their unions right to a lunch room was being violated. So this was one of the reasons offered as to why they wanted PK3 gone.

But they probably won't get a lunch room back even if the pre k 3 class is one.

What's the plan for the PK3 room? Will they add an additional K-1 class?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is fantastic. I hope all non-Title one schools follow suit. We should not be subsidizing a windfall for UMC parents. As a taxpayer, it is a much better investment to invest in wrap around services for children in poorer neighborhoods and circumstances.

FWIW there are families probably living near the poverty level at the school. But in general, I agree.

Agreed, but not that many and they can apply OOB, or soon will get a high subsidy from city for daycare. I say this as an UMC parent who pays a huge chunk for daycare every month - but I can afford to. I would rather the city take of poorer children -especially when there is so munch wingeing re: overcrowding.

+1. The kids in Ross PK3 in my experience were medium well off to very well off. You have to be to live in the catchement zone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is fantastic. I hope all non-Title one schools follow suit. We should not be subsidizing a windfall for UMC parents. As a taxpayer, it is a much better investment to invest in wrap around services for children in poorer neighborhoods and circumstances.

FWIW there are families probably living near the poverty level at the school. But in general, I agree.

Agreed, but not that many and they can apply OOB, or soon will get a high subsidy from city for daycare. I say this as an UMC parent who pays a huge chunk for daycare every month - but I can afford to. I would rather the city take of poorer children -especially when there is so munch wingeing re: overcrowding.

Anonymous wrote:This is fantastic. I hope all non-Title one schools follow suit. We should not be subsidizing a windfall for UMC parents. As a taxpayer, it is a much better investment to invest in wrap around services for children in poorer neighborhoods and circumstances.

FWIW there are families probably living near the poverty level at the school. But in general, I agree.

This is fantastic. I hope all non-Title one schools follow suit. We should not be subsidizing a windfall for UMC parents. As a taxpayer, it is a much better investment to invest in wrap around services for children in poorer neighborhoods and circumstances.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a good decision as it had become PK3 exclusively for siblings anyway. The school is tiny and the K and 1st grade classes are huge.

Yeah, it may chase some families away so K/1 isn't as huge. (Though if they cracked down on boundary fraud, that'd solve some of the problem too.)
But it was about 7 or 8 siblings out of the 15 slots this year.

What boundary fraud? The principal allows kids to stay as long as they had lived in the catchment area when they started. Once they're in, they're in.

Yep, those are the rules. They are being violated.

I remember a few years ago that they prevented 2 pre-K kids from enrolling who lived in upper northwest whose parents claimed their DuPont condo investment properties as their residence. But they could do that because did home visits for pre-k and the truth comes out. For the upper grades not so much... and enrollment drops after 1st grade so there’s more room for OOB kids.

Yes. This kind of thing is still happening. They can opt to do a home visit to meet the teacher or meet at a cafe, etc. What gets my goat is that it’s always rich parents who could afford to send their kids to private.