Anonymous wrote:The more I think about this, the more I think DCPS should be looking for ways to prioritize in-person days for PK (and maybe also K and even 1st) while going to an all DL option for all older grades. I think it's silly to focus on academics for PK -- that's honestly not what universal PK is about. The whole reason for the universal PK program was to help families by easing the childcare burden on families. There isn't even much conclusive evidence that academic instruction in PK improves long-term outcomes. But the availability of PK helps families because it makes it easier for parents, particularly women, to work. For low-income and even middle class families, working parents create financial stability which can only be good for children.

Even you think about PK as a childcare solution, not an academic solution, it becomes clear that:

(1) DL is pointless for this age group -- it doesn't benefit the kids academically and it only increases the burden on families who have to manage homeschooling of very young children who are not capable of working independently yet; and

(2) If DCPS is able to offer any in-person instruction this year, it should prioritize it for PK students, students with special needs, and students who don't have access to a home environment that accommodates DL.

Acting like just abandoning PK for the year because DL doesn't work at this age totally ignores why PK exists to begin with.

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused as as to what people are talking about in the previous three to four posts. Why is today's announcement "devastating"? To my understanding, pre-K in person will take place two days a week either Monday and Tuesday for group a and Thursday and Friday for group b. Is this not correct? I'd rather have some in person Pre-K then nothing at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about this, the more I think DCPS should be looking for ways to prioritize in-person days for PK (and maybe also K and even 1st) while going to an all DL option for all older grades. I think it's silly to focus on academics for PK -- that's honestly not what universal PK is about. The whole reason for the universal PK program was to help families by easing the childcare burden on families. There isn't even much conclusive evidence that academic instruction in PK improves long-term outcomes. But the availability of PK helps families because it makes it easier for parents, particularly women, to work. For low-income and even middle class families, working parents create financial stability which can only be good for children.

Even you think about PK as a childcare solution, not an academic solution, it becomes clear that:

(1) DL is pointless for this age group -- it doesn't benefit the kids academically and it only increases the burden on families who have to manage homeschooling of very young children who are not capable of working independently yet; and

(2) If DCPS is able to offer any in-person instruction this year, it should prioritize it for PK students, students with special needs, and students who don't have access to a home environment that accommodates DL.

Acting like just abandoning PK for the year because DL doesn't work at this age totally ignores why PK exists to begin with.

Please include Sped PK. It's way more than childcare! Some children in my classroom were non-verbal at first and learned to talk because of school and the supports we provide! They learn so many skills that can't be accomplished through PACKETS or even DL.

DL is bad but not worthless, I can at least teach parents or their care providers how to help their functional language skills. I can't dictate in person and I tried but pretty much all my colleagues disagreed about in person. Which I understand I am only 23 (healthy), married but no children.

The announcement today was devastating and I hope it'll be rescinded. Even 1 day a week, I'll wear a hazmat suit, the students can think I'm an astronaut...

Anonymous wrote:

If a family is getting a nanny or a parent at home you should be able to do the 20-45 minutes per day of writing practice, readalouds, art projects, weekly class meetings, etc rather than ask a school to not serve you and possibly lose out on their per pupil funding when they need all the resources they can get. [/
PP here. I think you misunderstood. Obviously if there is no in-person school people are going to have to do whatever they need to do to get by -- everyone is struggling with this situation (I would not say that I am "managing" particularly well). I meant that if there is in-person school and some families choose to send their kids to private daycare instead, I feel weird about saying the schools should save those spots for them when another kid could occupy it this year. If everything is DL, even kids going to daycare could probably participate with DL minimally. I was just talking about in-person slots. Some folks can't afford a private option and those who can shouldn't also get to hold on to DCPS slots that could go to students whose parents don't have the option of paying someone to watch their kids.

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about this, the more I think DCPS should be looking for ways to prioritize in-person days for PK (and maybe also K and even 1st) while going to an all DL option for all older grades. I think it's silly to focus on academics for PK -- that's honestly not what universal PK is about. The whole reason for the universal PK program was to help families by easing the childcare burden on families. There isn't even much conclusive evidence that academic instruction in PK improves long-term outcomes. But the availability of PK helps families because it makes it easier for parents, particularly women, to work. For low-income and even middle class families, working parents create financial stability which can only be good for children.

Even you think about PK as a childcare solution, not an academic solution, it becomes clear that:

(1) DL is pointless for this age group -- it doesn't benefit the kids academically and it only increases the burden on families who have to manage homeschooling of very young children who are not capable of working independently yet; and

(2) If DCPS is able to offer any in-person instruction this year, it should prioritize it for PK students, students with special needs, and students who don't have access to a home environment that accommodates DL.

Acting like just abandoning PK for the year because DL doesn't work at this age totally ignores why PK exists to begin with.

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about this, the more I think DCPS should be looking for ways to prioritize in-person days for PK (and maybe also K and even 1st) while going to an all DL option for all older grades. I think it's silly to focus on academics for PK -- that's honestly not what universal PK is about. The whole reason for the universal PK program was to help families by easing the childcare burden on families. There isn't even much conclusive evidence that academic instruction in PK improves long-term outcomes. But the availability of PK helps families because it makes it easier for parents, particularly women, to work. For low-income and even middle class families, working parents create financial stability which can only be good for children.

Even you think about PK as a childcare solution, not an academic solution, it becomes clear that:

(1) DL is pointless for this age group -- it doesn't benefit the kids academically and it only increases the burden on families who have to manage homeschooling of very young children who are not capable of working independently yet; and

(2) If DCPS is able to offer any in-person instruction this year, it should prioritize it for PK students, students with special needs, and students who don't have access to a home environment that accommodates DL.

Acting like just abandoning PK for the year because DL doesn't work at this age totally ignores why PK exists to begin with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are in Prek3 this year with our middle one (our oldest a rising K). We are going to do enough to keep our spot, but I am not doing any real learning. Our oldest was not in a PreK program and left K reading at a 3rd grade level, so I am not at all worried about this.

Rising First Grader. Point is PreK3 and PreK4 are unneessary.

Anonymous wrote:So in this news conference they are saying all DL is not an option for PK 3 and PK 4, so I guess if they can't do hybrid right away, they aren't offering anything for PK 3 and 4? Guess we should all start getting our nannies/pods ready now!