Seaton is closer to losing it than Langley is. More gentrified and not as much self-contained special ed rooms.

Anonymous wrote:I expect that of the same people who really want their schools to "flip" with more high SES IB children - or who celebrate when they do - are going to be claiming that their school should remain Head Start eligible.

You can't have it both ways.

+1
Say it louder for the people in the back!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the dual language schools and the schools with large numbers of immigrants should keep it. DCPS can surely work with schools like Bancroft to enroll more Head Start eligible kids. The only schools where it really makes sense to cut the program are below.

Ludlow Taylor
Van Ness
Payne
West
Garrison
Burroughs
Bunker Hill
Langdon
Langley
Amidon Bowen
Payne
Miner
JO Wilson
Tyler
Takoma
Whittier

I would not take it from Langley. PK4 is a lot less gentrified than PK3. And you have to remember they have several separate classrooms for preschoolers with a lot of special needs. Add those in and the numbers are way more at-risk.

Special needs students are not technically considered at risk (don't get me started on that). However, there is a separate funding stream to provide them with additional support. The federal government to eliminate Head Start completely (not going to happen) and those kids would not lose funding.

As for being gentrified - it is the overall ECE population. So you would mix PK4 with PK3. Sounds like it on the bubble.

They are not automatically at-risk, but as it happens many of them are at-risk at Langley because they meet the criteria, and that means they count in the calculation.

PK3 at Langley is pretty gentrified, but the class size goes up for PK4 and again for K, so even before backfilling they are adding new kids. Some are middle or high income, but overall it is a net increase in the proportion who are at-risk. Langley may lose Head Start eventually, but not this year. Eventually they will need a third K classroom and that will also bring more at-risk kids. And there is some permanent affordable housing in the boundary including right across the street. So it is hard to see Langley losing it for quite some time.

I expect that of the same people who really want their schools to "flip" with more high SES IB children - or who celebrate when they do - are going to be claiming that their school should remain Head Start eligible.

You can't have it both ways.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the dual language schools and the schools with large numbers of immigrants should keep it. DCPS can surely work with schools like Bancroft to enroll more Head Start eligible kids. The only schools where it really makes sense to cut the program are below.

Ludlow Taylor
Van Ness
Payne
West
Garrison
Burroughs
Bunker Hill
Langdon
Langley
Amidon Bowen
Payne
Miner
JO Wilson
Tyler
Takoma
Whittier

I would not take it from Langley. PK4 is a lot less gentrified than PK3. And you have to remember they have several separate classrooms for preschoolers with a lot of special needs. Add those in and the numbers are way more at-risk.

Special needs students are not technically considered at risk (don't get me started on that). However, there is a separate funding stream to provide them with additional support. The federal government to eliminate Head Start completely (not going to happen) and those kids would not lose funding.

As for being gentrified - it is the overall ECE population. So you would mix PK4 with PK3. Sounds like it on the bubble.

Anonymous wrote:All of the dual language schools and the schools with large numbers of immigrants should keep it. DCPS can surely work with schools like Bancroft to enroll more Head Start eligible kids. The only schools where it really makes sense to cut the program are below.

Ludlow Taylor
Van Ness
Payne
West
Garrison
Burroughs
Bunker Hill
Langdon
Langley
Amidon Bowen
Payne
Miner
JO Wilson
Tyler
Takoma
Whittier

I would not take it from Langley. PK4 is a lot less gentrified than PK3. And you have to remember they have several separate classrooms for preschoolers with a lot of special needs. Add those in and the numbers are way more at-risk.

All of the dual language schools and the schools with large numbers of immigrants should keep it. DCPS can surely work with schools like Bancroft to enroll more Head Start eligible kids. The only schools where it really makes sense to cut the program are below.

Ludlow Taylor
Van Ness
Payne
West
Garrison
Burroughs
Bunker Hill
Langdon
Langley
Amidon Bowen
Payne
Miner
JO Wilson
Tyler
Takoma
Whittier

I could see DCPS trying to keep it at these schools:

Marie Reed
Cleveland
Bruce Monroe
Truesdell
Barnard
Tubman
Brightwood
Dorothy Height

Anonymous wrote:DCPS will have the full list of Head Start schools this summer after Head Start awards the grant amount. Even if DCPSs is awarded the full $14.5 million they requested, I would guess that only 30-40 schools will have Head Start. Everything else will probably see a drastic reduction in support.

Gentrified schools don't need Head Start. Head Start is to even the playing field, the reason why DC has universal PK in the first place.

DCPS will have the full list of Head Start schools this summer after Head Start awards the grant amount. Even if DCPSs is awarded the full $14.5 million they requested, I would guess that only 30-40 schools will have Head Start. Everything else will probably see a drastic reduction in support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All families will receive a letter explaining the situation with the grant this Friday.

Did anyone get this letter or is this just more troll BS?

I’m a teacher at a Title I school and a six page packet went home to every student in the school (not just Pre-K). I only had time to skim it but it seemed to confirm what was posted here—funding renewal prompted the change. It also seemed excessively long and complicated just to say “we’ll still have Pre-K, just different rules for schools.”

Did it say which schools? What is going to happen at your school?

I only received a letter. Information concerning our school will be released sometime this summer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All families will receive a letter explaining the situation with the grant this Friday.

Did anyone get this letter or is this just more troll BS?

I’m a teacher at a Title I school and a six page packet went home to every student in the school (not just Pre-K). I only had time to skim it but it seemed to confirm what was posted here—funding renewal prompted the change. It also seemed excessively long and complicated just to say “we’ll still have Pre-K, just different rules for schools.”

Did it say which schools? What is going to happen at your school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t wait until they ditch PreK. Let us focus on K and up. When we get that under control we can rethink PreK

You are clearly an expert in education. Maybe you should ge the next chancellor.

You tried to throw shade, but failed.
Not sure how to ‘ge’ the next chancellor. Keep me posted!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All families will receive a letter explaining the situation with the grant this Friday.

Did anyone get this letter or is this just more troll BS?

I’m a teacher at a Title I school and a six page packet went home to every student in the school (not just Pre-K). I only had time to skim it but it seemed to confirm what was posted here—funding renewal prompted the change. It also seemed excessively long and complicated just to say “we’ll still have Pre-K, just different rules for schools.”

Anonymous wrote:All families will receive a letter explaining the situation with the grant this Friday.

Did anyone get this letter or is this just more troll BS?