Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are all these PPs who are saying instructional coaching isn't necessary? Professional athletes--the best in the game--have coaches. In business, you have mentors to bounce ideas off and guide you. Even the best teachers can benefit from another professional's take. Each year, they get a new crop of kids, with a new crop of challenges. And that is before you even consider new hires and changes in curriculum.

Because the Head Start instructional coaching that DCPS provides is not actually very good.

And what criteria are you using to assess the quality? Please enlighten us.

Anonymous wrote:Why are all these PPs who are saying instructional coaching isn't necessary? Professional athletes--the best in the game--have coaches. In business, you have mentors to bounce ideas off and guide you. Even the best teachers can benefit from another professional's take. Each year, they get a new crop of kids, with a new crop of challenges. And that is before you even consider new hires and changes in curriculum.

Because the Head Start instructional coaching that DCPS provides is not actually very good.

Why are all these PPs who are saying instructional coaching isn't necessary? Professional athletes--the best in the game--have coaches. In business, you have mentors to bounce ideas off and guide you. Even the best teachers can benefit from another professional's take. Each year, they get a new crop of kids, with a new crop of challenges. And that is before you even consider new hires and changes in curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:DCPS might cover some things for a year, but I can see schools being forced to make cuts to the number of ECE classes they have. It might now happen right away but it will happen when DCPS realized just how expensive ECE really is. DCPS lucked out with having Head Start to build a great program for 10-12 years but that is coming to an end very soon.

This is almost certainly the instructional coach troll again... AFAI can tell, all of our PK teachers are excellent and don’t need instructional coaching to stay that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL! This is just hilarious. There was talk about schools losing head start last hear. Everyone said dismissed it and cried troll. Now schools are losing head start.

Now the same people are saying don’t worry, nothing will change when they don’t have a clue about all the stuff head start does.

If you believe these people, well I don’t know what to say. You can get burned once, but burned twice and you have no one to blame for decision errors than yourself.

This isn’t a laughing matter to principals who have to redo their budgets to see if there is a remote chance that DCPS will cover many of the things that they won’t receive next year. DCPS may cover some of the expense but there is no way they’re going to cover an entire $14.5 million.

They re-do their budgets every year, and they don't even have initial allocations yet. They are getting an increase in the UPSFF so that should close some of the gap.

DCPS might cover some things for a year, but I can see schools being forced to make cuts to the number of ECE classes they have. It might now happen right away but it will happen when DCPS realized just how expensive ECE really is. DCPS lucked out with having Head Start to build a great program for 10-12 years but that is coming to an end very soon.

Anonymous wrote:LOL! This is just hilarious. There was talk about schools losing head start last hear. Everyone said dismissed it and cried troll. Now schools are losing head start.

Now the same people are saying don’t worry, nothing will change when they don’t have a clue about all the stuff head start does.

If you believe these people, well I don’t know what to say. You can get burned once, but burned twice and you have no one to blame for decision errors than yourself.

This isn’t a laughing matter to principals who have to redo their budgets to see if there is a remote chance that DCPS will cover many of the things that they won’t receive next year. DCPS may cover some of the expense but there is no way they’re going to cover an entire $14.5 million.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way for parents to call Head Start and tell them how much they love and benefit from having Head Start at DCPS? That might help DCPS get the grant again.

What do you love about Head Start specifically? What HS-specific services do you benefit from? HS doesn’t mean PK. We will still have PK, just got all the extras. I’m guessing if you aren’t low income you don’t really use or need the services.

+1 I really don't understand what will be lost if dcps is committed to still providing pk through other funding. My only exposure to this is that I was told my child had to brush their teeth in pk because it was a head start requirement despite the fact that it was a potential source of her reoccurring strep throat. I can't imagine the teachers (who at my school have been teaching for 20+ years) are suddenly going to just stop teaching and put on you tube videos just because they are no longer bound by the head start curriculum requirements.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Family Engagement is a waste of space. Most of the staff is incompetent and a hassle to deal with. Parents will not even notoce if teacher coaching happens or doesn't. There's no way they'll pull back preschool furniture from a significant number of schools-- where would it go? It is mostly used and in bad condition anyway. And if they are really increasing the UPSFF by 4%, that can cover anything truly needed. Most parents will not notice a big difference, or any difference.

It’s obvious you don’t know how much stuff head start covers and monitors. The quality of ECE will decline. You can be in denial about it all you want.

Please do tell us specifically what we will miss? That hot mess of a Family Engagement office who spell everything wrong and refuse to collaborate with the PTA? The professional development for teachers who are already entirely capable? A bunch of old, used classroom items that the PTA can easily afford to replace?

Anonymous wrote:LOL! This is just hilarious. There was talk about schools losing head start last hear. Everyone said dismissed it and cried troll. Now schools are losing head start.

Now the same people are saying don’t worry, nothing will change when they don’t have a clue about all the stuff head start does.

If you believe these people, well I don’t know what to say. You can get burned once, but burned twice and you have no one to blame for decision errors than yourself.

Meant last year

LOL! This is just hilarious. There was talk about schools losing head start last hear. Everyone said dismissed it and cried troll. Now schools are losing head start.

Now the same people are saying don’t worry, nothing will change when they don’t have a clue about all the stuff head start does.

If you believe these people, well I don’t know what to say. You can get burned once, but burned twice and you have no one to blame for decision errors than yourself.

Anonymous wrote:Family Engagement is a waste of space. Most of the staff is incompetent and a hassle to deal with. Parents will not even notoce if teacher coaching happens or doesn't. There's no way they'll pull back preschool furniture from a significant number of schools-- where would it go? It is mostly used and in bad condition anyway. And if they are really increasing the UPSFF by 4%, that can cover anything truly needed. Most parents will not notice a big difference, or any difference.

It’s obvious you don’t know how much stuff head start covers and monitors. The quality of ECE will decline. You can be in denial about it all you want.

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way for parents to call Head Start and tell them how much they love and benefit from having Head Start at DCPS? That might help DCPS get the grant again.

What do you love about Head Start specifically? What HS-specific services do you benefit from? HS doesn’t mean PK. We will still have PK, just got all the extras. I’m guessing if you aren’t low income you don’t really use or need the services.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The OP tried to warn everyone about what was coming, but was met with so much hostility and was dismissed. Now everyone is seeing that DCPS preK is about to look and feel very different next school year. You should have listened.

+100

Nothing in the letter suggests that PK will look different at all. Also, I don't understand the "insider" lists that have VN and LT on them. VN is no longer T1. LT is losing its status for next school year. The principal has already made that announcement officially and the PTO is figuring out how to take over the aftercare program. Neither of those schools is unexpectedly losing HS because of this grant issue. That makes me think the person making up lists is... making up lists.

One note for schools losing T1 — you may also lose teachers who are pursuing certain loan forgiveness for teaching in high needs schools.

They are grandfathered in usually. I used the 5-year forgiveness program but only the first two years we were Title I.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ I have a question about that, actually. LT’s Principal is acting as though the school is going straight from T1 to not even targeted assistance. Is it really possible the school’s demographics shifted that much in a year or am I misunderstanding?

The T1 website says T1 is above 40% free & reduced lunch, targeted assistance is between 35-40%. So, maybe?

Hmm. LT was at 40% exactly this year... so I guess it's possible? It still seems odd that essentially one year in/one year out could have such an outsized effect, but I guess w/ the extra PK4 & K additions its possible.