Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS stayed home until prek4. We were only interested in an immersion charter that started at prek4 so did not apply anywhere for 3 yr olds. Applied to private schools and the charter we wanted. Got into charter off waitlist. We love the school so it all worked out. DS did not have any issues going from home to full day preschool as a 4 yr old.

Wanted to add that I would have preferred to keep DS at home until K but it is impossible to get into this charter for K. Last yr, they took no one except siblings so for us sending DS at preK, entry yr, made sense.

This may be a naive question, but can you not start your child at whatever is the earliest entry point at your desired school (for K), and simply send him/her there only every other day, or as often as you would have him attend a regular preschool? I mean, will they kick you out if you don't attend every day?

Yes, they'll kick you out. There's no right to attend pre-school, and is you try this, they will boot you. And should, in my opinion - that's terribly disruptive for the rest of the class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS stayed home until prek4. We were only interested in an immersion charter that started at prek4 so did not apply anywhere for 3 yr olds. Applied to private schools and the charter we wanted. Got into charter off waitlist. We love the school so it all worked out. DS did not have any issues going from home to full day preschool as a 4 yr old.

Wanted to add that I would have preferred to keep DS at home until K but it is impossible to get into this charter for K. Last yr, they took no one except siblings so for us sending DS at preK, entry yr, made sense.

This may be a naive question, but can you not start your child at whatever is the earliest entry point at your desired school (for K), and simply send him/her there only every other day, or as often as you would have him attend a regular preschool? I mean, will they kick you out if you don't attend every day?

Anonymous wrote:No matter what you claim, I'm not interested in furthering the advantages of the most advantaged. What I am discouraged by is how this most noble of goals: universal preschool choices that augment school readiness for all of DC's kids has degenerated into a ridiculous lottery scrum that has parents sitting out on the sidewalks all night. That is siphoning off students into "quasi-private" academies. That is pushing all kids into full day school when some still need two-hour naps, that is resulting in kids and parents who drive and metro for hours every day, and that is creating a paranoid culture where we suspect our classmates of being address cheaters.

I'll trust you when you say that boats are being lifted and I'm happy for that, but don't shout me down as selfish when I think there must be a better way of implementing "school choice."

So the "most advantaged" are at public charter schools? Not Beauvoir. Who knew.

Hey, grumpy posters (22:24 and 22:36 - now there’s two of you! a treat for the rest of us!) – settle down. I am the poster you quoted - if you go back and actually read the post you quoted, you’ll see that my kid is already in a great school – I have no dog in this hunt. I was just observing that there is a flaw in the system. Also, you appear to have missed the entire point about how as a result of the current system, there are fewer Pre-S and Pre-K slots for there kids that really need them.

Now as for the notion that no one should criticize the system – just start your own school! – don’t be ridiculous. Taking the position that public education in the District of Columbia is above reproach? Seriously? And no one is berating anyone – at least I’m not. But there is a weak spot in the public school system that is an unintended consequence of a great program (free pre-s and pre-k).

Also, do you think “starting your own school” is really that simple? Well, it’s Saturday, I have a few free hours, the laundry is all done – I know, I’ll start a charter school! Really, that fact that I have no expertise in education? No big deal, I’ll look it up online – how hard could it be? There’s gotta be a Wikipedia entry on “starting a charter school,” right?

Come on. By repeating over and over “just start your own school” you just give the impression that you don’t want to engage in a serious debate. It’s the equivalent of:

“Don’t like President Bush? Move to Canada with all the pinko liberals and stand in line for a shitty doctor!”

“Don’t like President Obama’s tax hikes and gun control proposals? Move to Somalia – they have no taxes or gun control there!”

It’s a rhetorical point with no substance. You can disagree that there is a problem, and you can debate solutions, but if all you want to do is castigate people for not starting their own charter school, and imply that this is the only solution, all I can say is we have heard you – now please let other people have a rational discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know a way around this, because it would be unfair to make kids who are in a school for 2 years alrerady reapply, but when what is supposed to be a voluntary program primarily targeting low-income, at-risk kids becomes a gateway to the highly competitive lottery for the "good" kindergarten slots - that just seems poorly designed to me.

One way around this is to start a new charter school with a kindergarten entrance. These competitive schools didn't just fall from the sky! People like you saw a niche that wasn't filled and provided research to show that filling the niche would benefit the education of dc kids and they got charters to start the school. Rather than berate these founders for deciding the research indicating starting before K would be the best option, take what you admire about their schools and and your own twist-- k start.

This reasonable point has been made twice already. The PPs wanting K entry so they're not cut out don't want to hear it. They want in when they want in and do not get that while all kids are welcome to apply, this system isn't set up to target the needs of all kids. And the kids it is set up to serve need PS & PK. So there's been a hostile response twice already to "start your own K school", even though that's exactly how the schools they want in to were begun.

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know a way around this, because it would be unfair to make kids who are in a school for 2 years alrerady reapply, but when what is supposed to be a voluntary program primarily targeting low-income, at-risk kids becomes a gateway to the highly competitive lottery for the "good" kindergarten slots - that just seems poorly designed to me.

One way around this is to start a new charter school with a kindergarten entrance. These competitive schools didn't just fall from the sky! People like you saw a niche that wasn't filled and provided research to show that filling the niche would benefit the education of dc kids and they got charters to start the school. Rather than berate these founders for deciding the research indicating starting before K would be the best option, take what you admire about their schools and and your own twist-- k start.

OP, just a quick note about your original post to say that I was so surprised at how ready my 3.5 year old was for 5 days of school all at once. From home all day to that, and really, no adjustment problems besides a bit of being clingy at first. I never would have believed it.

Yikes. I have no idea who the bickering parties are now, and I don't have the fortitude to wade through all the previous poses to see if this has been discussed already, so I'm sorry if it has, but:

One of the problems with the current system is that free pre-k, which I believe was targeted at low income and at-risk kids, has become a gateway for Kindergarten slots. That is, parents don't have a reasonable chance of getting into a good school in K, so they are required to apply for Pre-K or Pre-S. I'm not so much concerned for the well-off parents who'd rather have the kid be at home (though I don't have as much disdain for them as the rude, overly confrontational PP seems to) - but rather that this system adversely impacts the low income kids the Pre-K program is supposed to target. Parents who would not otherwise send their kids to DCPS or charter pre-school end up entering the lottery and taking spots that should go to low-income kids.

My family is a perfect example. We don't consider the IB DCPS elementary an option, and were very happy at our part-time private pre-school. But we also like living in the city, so charters were really the only option (given the state of OOB admissions these days). We applied to multiple charters and got into a great one. If there were realistic options at the K level, we wouldn't have applied, and the spot could have gone to a low-income kid who needed it much more than my daughter. But the system forced us into the pool. It wasn't to the detriment of my daughter at all - she's thriving - but it was to the detriment of some other kid. And that sucks (though there is something to be said for a socioeconomic mix at all schools).

And just telling people to not enter the lottery if they're not low-income isn't a solution, because of the far reaching effects. I'd have considered myself selfish if I took up a public school slot that in a pre-k program ended before kindergarten. But with the very small number of K seats available, there really was no choice.

I don't know a way around this, because it would be unfair to make kids who are in a school for 2 years alrerady reapply, but when what is supposed to be a voluntary program primarily targeting low-income, at-risk kids becomes a gateway to the highly competitive lottery for the "good" kindergarten slots - that just seems poorly designed to me.

Nobody has said that this system is perfect in any way. Obviously it is not. I hope a unified charter lottery will help. I have no idea how saving spots for kindergarteners would help anything though.

Anonymous wrote:No matter what you claim, I'm not interested in furthering the advantages of the most advantaged. What I am discouraged by is how this most noble of goals: universal preschool choices that augment school readiness for all of DC's kids has degenerated into a ridiculous lottery scrum that has parents sitting out on the sidewalks all night. That is siphoning off students into "quasi-private" academies. That is pushing all kids into full day school when some still need two-hour naps, that is resulting in kids and parents who drive and metro for hours every day, and that is creating a paranoid culture where we suspect our classmates of being address cheaters.

I'll trust you when you say that boats are being lifted and I'm happy for that, but don't shout me down as selfish when I think there must be a better way of implementing "school choice."

This is 15:14 and i agree with you 100 percent. Well put.

^^ that was in response to 15:03, not 15:14, sorry

No matter what you claim, I'm not interested in furthering the advantages of the most advantaged. What I am discouraged by is how this most noble of goals: universal preschool choices that augment school readiness for all of DC's kids has degenerated into a ridiculous lottery scrum that has parents sitting out on the sidewalks all night. That is siphoning off students into "quasi-private" academies. That is pushing all kids into full day school when some still need two-hour naps, that is resulting in kids and parents who drive and metro for hours every day, and that is creating a paranoid culture where we suspect our classmates of being address cheaters.

I'll trust you when you say that boats are being lifted and I'm happy for that, but don't shout me down as selfish when I think there must be a better way of implementing "school choice."

PP, you do not seem to follow the part where if you protect the spots for the low-income families. You could allow them priority while holding spots open. That way, there would be zero impact on those kids if they are guaranteed a spot.

What you don't want is spots reduced for wealthy families. Just say so, and shame on you for saying otherwise.

Bottom line: PS and PK are not "mandatory" nor are they meant to be. However, due to a flawed lottery system in DC, where the only way to get out of a shithole inbounds school is to preserve your spot starting at the earliest entry point available, PS3 and PK4 are "effectively" mandatory.

If they aren't supposed to be mandatory, they should not be "effectively mandatory" either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait. Hold up. Do you not know that there are sufficient spots for all children to go to preschool and prekindergarten in DC? There are always available spots. They are in the poorest areas of the city though, so most of the wealthier parents wouldn't consider them. But they are there. Nobody is actually getting shut out.

PP is basing her whole premise on how extending these programs to middle and wealthy class family helps kids in the lower SES. So while there may be a handful of spots at the city's scariest and lowest performing schools, do you really want to put that out there as a MEANINGFUL choice?

Also, none of this is about whether there are enough quality PS/PK slots (we know there are not enough quality ones), it's about whether, once people play the lottery and end up in the good slots (which for the most part are majority low income families, even at the popular charters), whether it is then fair to accomodate the parents who choose to keep their kids home or in private daycare prior to K by holding slots in K or forcing the entire system to start all over again at K. This would be just so those parents have a better shot at getting into the popular schools and don't get shut out for being able/choosing to keep their kids home up until K. This would benefit a very small portion of DC's population, but be more than 50% likely to disavantage low income families.

Yes, I'm not kidding, and this proposal was set forth by PPs as somehow being even more fair for low income families, and those of us pointing out the absurdity of that (while freely acknowledging that many of us are also advantaged parents with choices) are called selfish and only protecting ourselves. The point about it disproportionately hurting low income families is obviously irrelevant to the PPs proposing this idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait. Hold up. Do you not know that there are sufficient spots for all children to go to preschool and prekindergarten in DC? There are always available spots. They are in the poorest areas of the city though, so most of the wealthier parents wouldn't consider them. But they are there. Nobody is actually getting shut out.

PP is basing her whole premise on how extending these programs to middle and wealthy class family helps kids in the lower SES. So while there may be a handful of spots at the city's scariest and lowest performing schools, do you really want to put that out there as a MEANINGFUL choice?

Meaningful choice to whom? Kids that live in the neighborhood, or to someone else. Low income children in this city have access to amazing early elementary programs. The removal of the income requirements have proliferated the options that those families have, not the other way around. Please compare the programs of five years ago during the head start years to the programs now. There has been only improvement and expansion, and now nobody is shut out, even those that do not have much money but do not quite meet the head start limits. The OP should continue to focus on her real issue, that she wants all charter and DCPS schools to be available at any grade that she chooses and stop pretending that it is to help needy children.