Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My school’s principal just let us know that Head Start chose not to award DCPS with any Head Start funding for next school year. DCPS has lost its Head Start grant.

Two questions. Why? And what does this actually mean for students, parents, kids?
Not being rude- I just am having a hard time putting all the pieces together right now

It means our annoying troll is back with more unsupported rumor mongering. Ignore.

Unsupported? Well this person ended up being right. I’m going to say this is true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My school’s principal just let us know that Head Start chose not to award DCPS with any Head Start funding for next school year. DCPS has lost its Head Start grant.

Two questions. Why? And what does this actually mean for students, parents, kids?
Not being rude- I just am having a hard time putting all the pieces together right now

It means our annoying troll is back with more unsupported rumor mongering. Ignore.

Anonymous wrote:My school’s principal just let us know that Head Start chose not to award DCPS with any Head Start funding for next school year. DCPS has lost its Head Start grant.

Two questions. Why? And what does this actually mean for students, parents, kids?
Not being rude- I just am having a hard time putting all the pieces together right now

My school’s principal just let us know that Head Start chose not to award DCPS with any Head Start funding for next school year. DCPS has lost its Head Start grant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god. This is hilarious. All these parents at schools who are losing Head Start trying to justify that head start has no value.

You guys all sound desperate and pathetic really.

Head Start is a great program that has proven results. Fact. Your subjective opinions don’t matter a whole lot.

I’m just not sure what services Head Start provides. No one has provided and specifics of things that they would lose.

You would have to ask your school specifically. They are given money from the head start program to implement a curriculum that would meet their early learning outcomes framework.

Potential areas could be:

1. Teacher education in regards to outcome goals

2. Teacher training and development in such areas as below:
a. Early childhood development, teaching, and learning
b. Early childhood health and wellness
c. Parent, family, and community engagement

3. Curriculum materials

4. Testing materials and childhood quality outcomes

5. Classroom equipments, supplies

6. Social services such as social worker, mental health providers, community liaisons

7. Health and dental screenings


Those are some things that come to mind. I’m sure there are many more. But bottom line is they provide much needed services to schools that lack the resources for these things above.

The schools will lose a lot of money. They will have to cut or severely decrease whatever services above. It will drive down quality and educational outcomes.

If you look at the budget which varies by school but it’s anywhere from $130k-200k per school. Not small change.

Error between 130k-250k plus

Ok but if it is a middle class school they probably don't need extra funds for family engagement support, at school health and dental screenings (still available to zero cost to residents, just not at school), and once a teacher has been trained in the outcomes, does it really need to happen every year? Is the ECE teacher turnover that high?

And the schools that receive targetted assistance can still provide the things on the list above that are most critical. I really do not get the hysteria here.

So your point is that teachers don’t need ongoing professional development. Or that they don’t need support with GOLD Teaching Strategies' (assessment/observation/lesson planning), or CLASS. Or that a school doesn’t need 200k plus in funds to support curriculum and material.

I suggest you ask your school principal if they think that money is critical. I already know the answer.

Of course they need professional development, etc. Do they need it paid for by a head start grant, or should DCPS pay for it. This is a thread about Head Start redistribution. If DCPS wants to make ECE available to all, it needs to figure out how to pay for it for non-Head Start kids out of its per pupil allocation, the same as charters do.

DCPS doesn’t need to figure out how to pay for it. Nowhere does it say they will be subsidizing the money lost from Head Start.

That burden will be on the schools and what will happen is that less resources will be available for ECE or for the school in general if money is shifted from other areas. My bet is less resources for ECE.

Then after above happens this coming school year, DCPS might cut ECE seats from non-Head start schools with preK 3. Then preK 4.

The schools will then not have ECE like the schools WOTP. No way will DCPS be paying for ECE for middle class kids.

Other more probable scenario would be allotting ECE seats to only low SES kids or a significant percentage of them.

The benefit of free ECE is that everyone gets it.
It brings families together.
It brings all families that live in an area to the same school.
It is an integrating force that strengthens the schools.


And like free retirement (Social Security), because wealthy and non-wealthy people both get it, it’s politically hard to cut.

If you turn ECE into a low-income only program you will: first immediately segregate schools by pushing out more wealthy families, and second you will put the program in danger of being cut, as you’re pushing out a big political constituency.

The way to win long term in politics and in life is to embrace lots of different kinds of people.

Reasoning above completely flawed:

1. DCPS is not interested in providing ECE to middle class families. This is why schools WOTP don’t have it. Their motto is your kid will be fine. You can also afford to pay for ECE.

2. Sure, ideally it would be great to give everyone free ECE but reality is the money is not there. DCPS already has a budget shortfall for this coming year.

3. ECE actually does not bring families together in a school or neighborhood. When middle class families use free ECE in DCPS and then leave in K or 1st, it actually builds up resentment among the families who stay. They know that these families are not invested long term in the school. The stories I could tell you from this.

4. Turning ECE to favor low income students will benefit not only these students but also the schools if they get HS back. You don’t segregate schools by not having ECE for middle class families. You segregate schools by not providing what kids from all income levels need. For middle class families, it’s not ECE. It’s rigorous curriculum in the upper elementary. No need to track when kids are learning the alphabet. Real need to track when you get to higher math and reading. Real need to track in middle school.

5. Mayor doesn’t care about the the political constituency of middle class families. This has been proven again and again with honors for all, eliminating PARRC scores at SWW, refusing to address overcrowding WOTP, refusing a new middle school in Shaw, etc... I could go on. Sadly, she doesn’t need to either because there is no one to challenge her in the office.

Last but not least, WOTP families could care less about not having ECE. No one is complaining about that. They care about overcrowded classes, overwhelmed teachers, behavioral issues not being addressed or support for it, no tracking for everything but math and ELA, etc....

As an EOTP family, I care more about rigor in upper elementary, support for smaller class sizes, support to deal with behavioral issues in the classroom, tracking, viable neighborhood middle and high schools. That is what is important in the big picture and long term, not 2 years of ECE. These are the things with a higher ROI for the money, not ECE. And if you take a poll of these issues vs. ECE, I can guarantee you the overwhelming majority of families EOTP would agree with me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god. This is hilarious. All these parents at schools who are losing Head Start trying to justify that head start has no value.

You guys all sound desperate and pathetic really.

Head Start is a great program that has proven results. Fact. Your subjective opinions don’t matter a whole lot.

I’m just not sure what services Head Start provides. No one has provided and specifics of things that they would lose.

You would have to ask your school specifically. They are given money from the head start program to implement a curriculum that would meet their early learning outcomes framework.

Potential areas could be:

1. Teacher education in regards to outcome goals

2. Teacher training and development in such areas as below:
a. Early childhood development, teaching, and learning
b. Early childhood health and wellness
c. Parent, family, and community engagement

3. Curriculum materials

4. Testing materials and childhood quality outcomes

5. Classroom equipments, supplies

6. Social services such as social worker, mental health providers, community liaisons

7. Health and dental screenings


Those are some things that come to mind. I’m sure there are many more. But bottom line is they provide much needed services to schools that lack the resources for these things above.

The schools will lose a lot of money. They will have to cut or severely decrease whatever services above. It will drive down quality and educational outcomes.

If you look at the budget which varies by school but it’s anywhere from $130k-200k per school. Not small change.

Error between 130k-250k plus

Ok but if it is a middle class school they probably don't need extra funds for family engagement support, at school health and dental screenings (still available to zero cost to residents, just not at school), and once a teacher has been trained in the outcomes, does it really need to happen every year? Is the ECE teacher turnover that high?

And the schools that receive targetted assistance can still provide the things on the list above that are most critical. I really do not get the hysteria here.

So your point is that teachers don’t need ongoing professional development. Or that they don’t need support with GOLD Teaching Strategies' (assessment/observation/lesson planning), or CLASS. Or that a school doesn’t need 200k plus in funds to support curriculum and material.

I suggest you ask your school principal if they think that money is critical. I already know the answer.

Of course they need professional development, etc. Do they need it paid for by a head start grant, or should DCPS pay for it. This is a thread about Head Start redistribution. If DCPS wants to make ECE available to all, it needs to figure out how to pay for it for non-Head Start kids out of its per pupil allocation, the same as charters do.

DCPS doesn’t need to figure out how to pay for it. Nowhere does it say they will be subsidizing the money lost from Head Start.

That burden will be on the schools and what will happen is that less resources will be available for ECE or for the school in general if money is shifted from other areas. My bet is less resources for ECE.

Then after above happens this coming school year, DCPS might cut ECE seats from non-Head start schools with preK 3. Then preK 4.

The schools will then not have ECE like the schools WOTP. No way will DCPS be paying for ECE for middle class kids.

Other more probable scenario would be allotting ECE seats to only low SES kids or a significant percentage of them.

The benefit of free ECE is that everyone gets it.
It brings families together.
It brings all families that live in an area to the same school.
It is an integrating force that strengthens the schools.


And like free retirement (Social Security), because wealthy and non-wealthy people both get it, it’s politically hard to cut.

If you turn ECE into a low-income only program you will: first immediately segregate schools by pushing out more wealthy families, and second you will put the program in danger of being cut, as you’re pushing out a big political constituency.

The way to win long term in politics and in life is to embrace lots of different kinds of people.

Anonymous wrote:Head Start also dictates maximum class sizes and staffing pattern. Loss of HS funding would mean that schools could take more children in PK3 and PK4 classrooms and could have only a teacher without an assistant.

OSSE has childcare ratios that apply to 3 and 4 yo’s in schools too. DCPS isn’t going to go higher than that.

Why is everyone fear mongering? This really won’t be noticeable to most families or children.

Head Start also dictates maximum class sizes and staffing pattern. Loss of HS funding would mean that schools could take more children in PK3 and PK4 classrooms and could have only a teacher without an assistant.

Anonymous wrote:And? Why is that a bad thing?

Personally I doubt it will happen. Mostly because the DME and DCPS do not want to lose anymore ‘market share’ to charters.

It’s not a bad thing to give preference to low SES kids.

But ECE is not the big reason why DCPS loses “market share” to charters EOTP.

And? Why is that a bad thing?

Personally I doubt it will happen. Mostly because the DME and DCPS do not want to lose anymore ‘market share’ to charters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god. This is hilarious. All these parents at schools who are losing Head Start trying to justify that head start has no value.

You guys all sound desperate and pathetic really.

Head Start is a great program that has proven results. Fact. Your subjective opinions don’t matter a whole lot.

I’m just not sure what services Head Start provides. No one has provided and specifics of things that they would lose.

You would have to ask your school specifically. They are given money from the head start program to implement a curriculum that would meet their early learning outcomes framework.

Potential areas could be:

1. Teacher education in regards to outcome goals

2. Teacher training and development in such areas as below:
a. Early childhood development, teaching, and learning
b. Early childhood health and wellness
c. Parent, family, and community engagement

3. Curriculum materials

4. Testing materials and childhood quality outcomes

5. Classroom equipments, supplies

6. Social services such as social worker, mental health providers, community liaisons

7. Health and dental screenings


Those are some things that come to mind. I’m sure there are many more. But bottom line is they provide much needed services to schools that lack the resources for these things above.

The schools will lose a lot of money. They will have to cut or severely decrease whatever services above. It will drive down quality and educational outcomes.

If you look at the budget which varies by school but it’s anywhere from $130k-200k per school. Not small change.

Error between 130k-250k plus

Ok but if it is a middle class school they probably don't need extra funds for family engagement support, at school health and dental screenings (still available to zero cost to residents, just not at school), and once a teacher has been trained in the outcomes, does it really need to happen every year? Is the ECE teacher turnover that high?

And the schools that receive targetted assistance can still provide the things on the list above that are most critical. I really do not get the hysteria here.

So your point is that teachers don’t need ongoing professional development. Or that they don’t need support with GOLD Teaching Strategies' (assessment/observation/lesson planning), or CLASS. Or that a school doesn’t need 200k plus in funds to support curriculum and material.

I suggest you ask your school principal if they think that money is critical. I already know the answer.

Of course they need professional development, etc. Do they need it paid for by a head start grant, or should DCPS pay for it. This is a thread about Head Start redistribution. If DCPS wants to make ECE available to all, it needs to figure out how to pay for it for non-Head Start kids out of its per pupil allocation, the same as charters do.

DCPS doesn’t need to figure out how to pay for it. Nowhere does it say they will be subsidizing the money lost from Head Start.

That burden will be on the schools and what will happen is that less resources will be available for ECE or for the school in general if money is shifted from other areas. My bet is less resources for ECE.

Then after above happens this coming school year, DCPS might cut ECE seats from non-Head start schools with preK 3. Then preK 4.

The schools will then not have ECE like the schools WOTP. No way will DCPS be paying for ECE for middle class kids.

Other more probable scenario would be allotting ECE seats to only low SES kids or a significant percentage of them.

Head Start also paid for extra ECE floater educational aides at each Title I school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god. This is hilarious. All these parents at schools who are losing Head Start trying to justify that head start has no value.

You guys all sound desperate and pathetic really.

Head Start is a great program that has proven results. Fact. Your subjective opinions don’t matter a whole lot.

I’m just not sure what services Head Start provides. No one has provided and specifics of things that they would lose.

You would have to ask your school specifically. They are given money from the head start program to implement a curriculum that would meet their early learning outcomes framework.

Potential areas could be:

1. Teacher education in regards to outcome goals

2. Teacher training and development in such areas as below:
a. Early childhood development, teaching, and learning
b. Early childhood health and wellness
c. Parent, family, and community engagement

3. Curriculum materials

4. Testing materials and childhood quality outcomes

5. Classroom equipments, supplies

6. Social services such as social worker, mental health providers, community liaisons

7. Health and dental screenings


Those are some things that come to mind. I’m sure there are many more. But bottom line is they provide much needed services to schools that lack the resources for these things above.

The schools will lose a lot of money. They will have to cut or severely decrease whatever services above. It will drive down quality and educational outcomes.

If you look at the budget which varies by school but it’s anywhere from $130k-200k per school. Not small change.

Error between 130k-250k plus

Ok but if it is a middle class school they probably don't need extra funds for family engagement support, at school health and dental screenings (still available to zero cost to residents, just not at school), and once a teacher has been trained in the outcomes, does it really need to happen every year? Is the ECE teacher turnover that high?

And the schools that receive targetted assistance can still provide the things on the list above that are most critical. I really do not get the hysteria here.

Uh no, the schools losing title 1 is not middle class. The ECE might be more than 40% low SES or middle class but the school as a whole is far from it.

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. The only school losing T1 this year is LT. LT's PK is probably 75%+ solidly UMC; I'd guess 10% FARMS eligible at most. The school as a whole is more diverse -- which is great -- but still pretty solidly middle class+ overall. (Last year's at risk percentage was 30% and that was with 40% FARMS eligible; looks like this year's FARMS eligible is sub 35%, so I would guess at risk is sub 25%. The PTA raises ~$75K and that's w/ no suggested donation, no fundraising for the first month+ of school so new families can settle in, and only one pay to attend event w/ free tickets for teachers + any parents who ask. All of this screams middle class+ school to me.)

LT is not the only one losing head start. LT may look more middle class in the upper grades but not true for many other schools at all.

Why are people having so much trouble confusing T1 and HS? LT is the only school losing T1, which is what the above comments refer to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god. This is hilarious. All these parents at schools who are losing Head Start trying to justify that head start has no value.

You guys all sound desperate and pathetic really.

Head Start is a great program that has proven results. Fact. Your subjective opinions don’t matter a whole lot.

I’m just not sure what services Head Start provides. No one has provided and specifics of things that they would lose.

You would have to ask your school specifically. They are given money from the head start program to implement a curriculum that would meet their early learning outcomes framework.

Potential areas could be:

1. Teacher education in regards to outcome goals

2. Teacher training and development in such areas as below:
a. Early childhood development, teaching, and learning
b. Early childhood health and wellness
c. Parent, family, and community engagement

3. Curriculum materials

4. Testing materials and childhood quality outcomes

5. Classroom equipments, supplies

6. Social services such as social worker, mental health providers, community liaisons

7. Health and dental screenings


Those are some things that come to mind. I’m sure there are many more. But bottom line is they provide much needed services to schools that lack the resources for these things above.

The schools will lose a lot of money. They will have to cut or severely decrease whatever services above. It will drive down quality and educational outcomes.

If you look at the budget which varies by school but it’s anywhere from $130k-200k per school. Not small change.

Error between 130k-250k plus

Ok but if it is a middle class school they probably don't need extra funds for family engagement support, at school health and dental screenings (still available to zero cost to residents, just not at school), and once a teacher has been trained in the outcomes, does it really need to happen every year? Is the ECE teacher turnover that high?

And the schools that receive targetted assistance can still provide the things on the list above that are most critical. I really do not get the hysteria here.

So your point is that teachers don’t need ongoing professional development. Or that they don’t need support with GOLD Teaching Strategies' (assessment/observation/lesson planning), or CLASS. Or that a school doesn’t need 200k plus in funds to support curriculum and material.

I suggest you ask your school principal if they think that money is critical. I already know the answer.

Of course they need professional development, etc. Do they need it paid for by a head start grant, or should DCPS pay for it. This is a thread about Head Start redistribution. If DCPS wants to make ECE available to all, it needs to figure out how to pay for it for non-Head Start kids out of its per pupil allocation, the same as charters do.

DCPS doesn’t need to figure out how to pay for it. Nowhere does it say they will be subsidizing the money lost from Head Start.

That burden will be on the schools and what will happen is that less resources will be available for ECE or for the school in general if money is shifted from other areas. My bet is less resources for ECE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god. This is hilarious. All these parents at schools who are losing Head Start trying to justify that head start has no value.

You guys all sound desperate and pathetic really.

Head Start is a great program that has proven results. Fact. Your subjective opinions don’t matter a whole lot.

I’m just not sure what services Head Start provides. No one has provided and specifics of things that they would lose.

You would have to ask your school specifically. They are given money from the head start program to implement a curriculum that would meet their early learning outcomes framework.

Potential areas could be:

1. Teacher education in regards to outcome goals

2. Teacher training and development in such areas as below:
a. Early childhood development, teaching, and learning
b. Early childhood health and wellness
c. Parent, family, and community engagement

3. Curriculum materials

4. Testing materials and childhood quality outcomes

5. Classroom equipments, supplies

6. Social services such as social worker, mental health providers, community liaisons

7. Health and dental screenings


Those are some things that come to mind. I’m sure there are many more. But bottom line is they provide much needed services to schools that lack the resources for these things above.

The schools will lose a lot of money. They will have to cut or severely decrease whatever services above. It will drive down quality and educational outcomes.

If you look at the budget which varies by school but it’s anywhere from $130k-200k per school. Not small change.

Error between 130k-250k plus

Ok but if it is a middle class school they probably don't need extra funds for family engagement support, at school health and dental screenings (still available to zero cost to residents, just not at school), and once a teacher has been trained in the outcomes, does it really need to happen every year? Is the ECE teacher turnover that high?

And the schools that receive targetted assistance can still provide the things on the list above that are most critical. I really do not get the hysteria here.

Uh no, the schools losing title 1 is not middle class. The ECE might be more than 40% low SES or middle class but the school as a whole is far from it.

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. The only school losing T1 this year is LT. LT's PK is probably 75%+ solidly UMC; I'd guess 10% FARMS eligible at most. The school as a whole is more diverse -- which is great -- but still pretty solidly middle class+ overall. (Last year's at risk percentage was 30% and that was with 40% FARMS eligible; looks like this year's FARMS eligible is sub 35%, so I would guess at risk is sub 25%. The PTA raises ~$75K and that's w/ no suggested donation, no fundraising for the first month+ of school so new families can settle in, and only one pay to attend event w/ free tickets for teachers + any parents who ask. All of this screams middle class+ school to me.)

LT is not the only one losing head start. LT may look more middle class in the upper grades but not true for many other schools at all.