Anonymous wrote:The only current Title I schools where ECE would survive to some degree would be Bancroft, Marie Reed, Powell, Ludlow Taylor, Van Ness, and Garrison. However, every school except Ludlow-Taylor and Van Ness relies heavily on the ECE content specific instructional coaching provided by Head Start.
Anonymous wrote:The only current Title I schools where ECE would survive to some degree would be Bancroft, Marie Reed, Powell, Ludlow Taylor, Van Ness, and Garrison. However, every school except Ludlow-Taylor and Van Ness relies heavily on the ECE content specific instructional coaching provided by Head Start.
Anonymous wrote:The only current Title I schools where ECE would survive to some degree would be Bancroft, Marie Reed, Powell, Ludlow Taylor, Van Ness, and Garrison. However, every school except Ludlow-Taylor and Van Ness relies heavily on the ECE content specific instructional coaching provided by Head Start.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The only thing that DCPS finds that is related to ECE are the personnel costs for teacher and paraprofessional salaries. Things like the curriculum are covered by the Head Start grant. The 17 schools that switched to Creative Curriculum this year had all of their curriculum materials covered by Head Start. SWW at Francis Stevens was the only schools that wasn’t covered since they are no longer Title I and don’t offer Head Start.
Is curriculum really that expensive? What else, supplies, maybe new furniture once in a while? I feel like if they cut Head Start, a lot of schools would find a way to cover it through PTA.
Anonymous wrote:The only thing that DCPS finds that is related to ECE are the personnel costs for teacher and paraprofessional salaries. Things like the curriculum are covered by the Head Start grant. The 17 schools that switched to Creative Curriculum this year had all of their curriculum materials covered by Head Start. SWW at Francis Stevens was the only schools that wasn’t covered since they are no longer Title I and don’t offer Head Start.
Anonymous wrote:There is also no guarantee that Head Start will even award DCPS with the grant again. If DCPS does not receive the grant, this will be the end of ECE unless DCPS makes up the difference with local funds.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Realistically DCPS has too many schools providing Head Start services. Operating out of 60 Title I elementary schools is just too much and if DCPS wants to focus on improving educational outcomes they should only focus on the kids that need the services. If it was up to me, DCPS would only have Head Start services and support at the schools below.
All elementary school EOTR (wards 7 and 8)
Tubman ES
Raymond EC
Brightwood EC
LaSalle Backus EC
Walker Jones EC
Truesdell EC
Cleveland ES
Wheatley EC
Dorothy Height ES
Burroughs ES
Langdon ES
Langley ES
Noyes ES
Barnard ES
So, how did you come up with that list?? Our IB Bunker Hill that is very much majority low income. Bunk Hill has had the best Prk review scores in the city years running. I love walking to our school and would hate to see it go, just join a larger school nearby.
But I do agree school that are not Title one could have Prk phased out. But let's face it the free Prk also what keeps a LOT of families in the city at all.
The children in grades K through 5 at Bunker Hill are very much low income but the Head Start eligibility percentage for Bunker Hill is hovering around 30-35%. That does not justify having Head Start services anymore. If DCPS does move forward with eliminating Head Start at some schools, many of the dual language Title I schools like Bancroft, Powell, and Marie Reed will probably see their Head Start program cut. However if DCPS wants to ensure that Head Start eligible kids, they should designate one or two of the PK classrooms as Head Start classrooms. Given the demographic changes, that’s the only way that DCPS can justify to the Federal Office of Head Start the need to continue offering Head Start at certain schools.
So like one classroom for the upper-income kids and a separate room for the poors? You can't be serious.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Realistically DCPS has too many schools providing Head Start services. Operating out of 60 Title I elementary schools is just too much and if DCPS wants to focus on improving educational outcomes they should only focus on the kids that need the services. If it was up to me, DCPS would only have Head Start services and support at the schools below.
All elementary school EOTR (wards 7 and 8)
Tubman ES
Raymond EC
Brightwood EC
LaSalle Backus EC
Walker Jones EC
Truesdell EC
Cleveland ES
Wheatley EC
Dorothy Height ES
Burroughs ES
Langdon ES
Langley ES
Noyes ES
Barnard ES
So, how did you come up with that list?? Our IB Bunker Hill that is very much majority low income. Bunk Hill has had the best Prk review scores in the city years running. I love walking to our school and would hate to see it go, just join a larger school nearby.
But I do agree school that are not Title one could have Prk phased out. But let's face it the free Prk also what keeps a LOT of families in the city at all.
The children in grades K through 5 at Bunker Hill are very much low income but the Head Start eligibility percentage for Bunker Hill is hovering around 30-35%. That does not justify having Head Start services anymore. If DCPS does move forward with eliminating Head Start at some schools, many of the dual language Title I schools like Bancroft, Powell, and Marie Reed will probably see their Head Start program cut. However if DCPS wants to ensure that Head Start eligible kids, they should designate one or two of the PK classrooms as Head Start classrooms. Given the demographic changes, that’s the only way that DCPS can justify to the Federal Office of Head Start the need to continue offering Head Start at certain schools.