Anonymous
09/06/2019 20:41
Subject: Is it like this every year?
There’s some chatter that DCPS will only be providing Head Start at schools in wards 7, 8, and a portion of ward 5 next year. They will also possibly have it at 6 or 7 other schools outside of those wards. My guesses for the other 7 schools are Tubman ES, Walker Jones EC, Dorothy Height ES, Raymond EC, Brightwood EC, Barnard ES and LaSalle Backus EC. Everything else will most likely be cut.
Title I Schools that will probably be cut based on low Head Start eligibility.
Van Ness
Ludlow Taylor
Bancroft
Marie Reed
HD Cooke
Garrison
Seaton
Thomson
Whittier
Takoma
Miner
Payne
JO Wilson
Amidon Bowen
Tyler
Powell
Bruce Monroe
West
Title I Schools that will probably be cut based on low Head Start eligibility.
Van Ness
Ludlow Taylor
Bancroft
Marie Reed
HD Cooke
Garrison
Seaton
Thomson
Whittier
Takoma
Miner
Payne
JO Wilson
Amidon Bowen
Tyler
Powell
Bruce Monroe
West
Anonymous
09/06/2019 17:55
Subject: Is it like this every year?
I would be surprised if schools like Garrison, Marie Reed and Bancroft still have a CEP of 93% when the next Title I eligibility reveiw happens in February 2020. Some of my colleagues assigned to these schools to work with ECE teachers were amazed by the lack of diversity in a majority of the classrooms. DCPS is heading in the wrong direction if a PK classroom has 14 affluent/white students and 3 black students.
Anonymous
09/06/2019 17:26
Subject: Is it like this every year?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Do you even know how DCPS calculates Title I status for schools? DCPS uses CEP to determine Title I status. Every school except Ludlow Taylor and Van Ness is above 90% for CEP. Ludlow is at 40% and Van Ness is at 35.5%.
Neither VN nor LT are T1 anymore.
Ludlow Taylor is still Title I for this current school year. Van Ness was able to qualify to be a Title I targeted assistance school this year.
https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/List%20of%20Title%20I%20Public%20Schools%20SY%2019-20.pdf
I didn't realize a school could lose its community eligibility provision eligibility and still be Title I. I had (obviously mistakenly) thought those were the same thing. Can someone explain how a school qualifies for T1 then? Is it just a slightly higher threshhold of the same thing or is it a different metric entirely?
There are two kinds of Title I programs: Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance.
A school is eligible to become a Title I Schoolwide Program if 40% or more of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch. Eligible schools are permitted to use Title I, Part A funds in combination with state and local resources and other federal education program funds to upgrade the entire educational program of the school to raise the academic achievement of all students.
A school is eligible to become a Title I Targeted Assistance Program if between 35-40% of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch. The term “targeted assistance” means that the services are provided to a select group of children—those identified as failing, or most at risk of failing, rather than for overall school improvement.
https://dcps.dc.gov/TitleI
Got it, thanks. So per the poster above, L-T is currently at 40% and VN is currently at 35.5%, so it's incredibly likely L-T is about to lose T1 status (and become a targeted assistance program) and VN is about to lose T1 targeted status?
At this point, LT will probably not even qualify for targeted assistance for SY 2020-2021. LT will probably only have a CEP rate of 33-35%. Van Ness probably won’t qualify for targeted assistance next year.
L-T hit the 40% exactly this year and I have to wonder if they intentionally didn't move the WL all summer until right after the determination was made knowing they were exactly on the bubble. (Notoriously, kids that accept late spots off of the WL tend to be higher SES b/c they are more likely to have the flexibility required and, in some cases, ability to forego aftercare.) FWIW, the extra 3 kids in my kid's class are all non-FARMS, so given how small L-T is, that might put them at 39% right there... Anyway, I might be conspiracy minded, but the Principal did a huge push for FARMS-eligible families to fill out the paper work/even chasing families over the summer (i.e., in time for the determination date)... as they should, but it suggests they were hyper-aware of the percentage they were at.
Ludlow Taylor was at 40% in February. This is the time when the DCPS Federal Programs Team reviews data from OSSE and makes a determination about whether schools will experience a change in Title I status. Notification letter are usually sent to principals and instructional superintendents
in late February or early March.
No, I don’t believe this is true with regard to L-T. I believe they originally lost their Title 1 and appealed in some way. It was just announced to parents in the last week or two that they managed to keep it. A meeting re: how to spend the T1 funds was added to the schedule because they originally assumed it wouldn’t be needed.
Ludlow Taylor did not lose their Title I status and there was not an appeal. Student enrollment data from OSSE determined that LT was still eligible for Title I status in February. Title I funds were included in their initial budget allocation in February. It is required that all Title I schools inform parents about the Title I Program. Just ask the DCPS Federal Programs Team instead of assuming..,
Anonymous
09/06/2019 09:19
Subject: Is it like this every year?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Do you even know how DCPS calculates Title I status for schools? DCPS uses CEP to determine Title I status. Every school except Ludlow Taylor and Van Ness is above 90% for CEP. Ludlow is at 40% and Van Ness is at 35.5%.
Neither VN nor LT are T1 anymore.
Ludlow Taylor is still Title I for this current school year. Van Ness was able to qualify to be a Title I targeted assistance school this year.
https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/List%20of%20Title%20I%20Public%20Schools%20SY%2019-20.pdf
I didn't realize a school could lose its community eligibility provision eligibility and still be Title I. I had (obviously mistakenly) thought those were the same thing. Can someone explain how a school qualifies for T1 then? Is it just a slightly higher threshhold of the same thing or is it a different metric entirely?
There are two kinds of Title I programs: Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance.
A school is eligible to become a Title I Schoolwide Program if 40% or more of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch. Eligible schools are permitted to use Title I, Part A funds in combination with state and local resources and other federal education program funds to upgrade the entire educational program of the school to raise the academic achievement of all students.
A school is eligible to become a Title I Targeted Assistance Program if between 35-40% of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch. The term “targeted assistance” means that the services are provided to a select group of children—those identified as failing, or most at risk of failing, rather than for overall school improvement.
https://dcps.dc.gov/TitleI
Got it, thanks. So per the poster above, L-T is currently at 40% and VN is currently at 35.5%, so it's incredibly likely L-T is about to lose T1 status (and become a targeted assistance program) and VN is about to lose T1 targeted status?
At this point, LT will probably not even qualify for targeted assistance for SY 2020-2021. LT will probably only have a CEP rate of 33-35%. Van Ness probably won’t qualify for targeted assistance next year.
L-T hit the 40% exactly this year and I have to wonder if they intentionally didn't move the WL all summer until right after the determination was made knowing they were exactly on the bubble. (Notoriously, kids that accept late spots off of the WL tend to be higher SES b/c they are more likely to have the flexibility required and, in some cases, ability to forego aftercare.) FWIW, the extra 3 kids in my kid's class are all non-FARMS, so given how small L-T is, that might put them at 39% right there... Anyway, I might be conspiracy minded, but the Principal did a huge push for FARMS-eligible families to fill out the paper work/even chasing families over the summer (i.e., in time for the determination date)... as they should, but it suggests they were hyper-aware of the percentage they were at.
Ludlow Taylor was at 40% in February. This is the time when the DCPS Federal Programs Team reviews data from OSSE and makes a determination about whether schools will experience a change in Title I status. Notification letter are usually sent to principals and instructional superintendents
in late February or early March.
No, I don’t believe this is true with regard to L-T. I believe they originally lost their Title 1 and appealed in some way. It was just announced to parents in the last week or two that they managed to keep it. A meeting re: how to spend the T1 funds was added to the schedule because they originally assumed it wouldn’t be needed.
Anonymous
09/06/2019 07:27
Subject: Is it like this every year?
Re: affluent women and the workforce, here's the recent study from the Center American Progress looking specifically at the maternal labor force effects of DC's preschool program: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/reports/2018/09/26/458208/effects-universal-preschool-washington-d-c/
Key takeaways:
In the years since Washington, D.C., began offering two years of universal preschool, the city’s maternal labor force participation rate has increased by about 12 percentage points, with 10 percentage points attributable to preschool expansion.
District of Columbia mothers with young children now participate in the labor force at about the same rate as District of Columbia mothers whose children are in elementary school.
Maternal labor force participation increased among both low-income and high-income families. Maternal labor force participation was unchanged for middle-income families during the study period and is examined below.
Women with young children also saw large increases in employment, with boosts to full-time work for married women and part-time work for unmarried women.
Key takeaways:
In the years since Washington, D.C., began offering two years of universal preschool, the city’s maternal labor force participation rate has increased by about 12 percentage points, with 10 percentage points attributable to preschool expansion.
District of Columbia mothers with young children now participate in the labor force at about the same rate as District of Columbia mothers whose children are in elementary school.
Maternal labor force participation increased among both low-income and high-income families. Maternal labor force participation was unchanged for middle-income families during the study period and is examined below.
Women with young children also saw large increases in employment, with boosts to full-time work for married women and part-time work for unmarried women.
Anonymous
09/06/2019 07:04
Subject: Is it like this every year?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There is no way PK3 classrooms go away, from any of these schools. Some budget decisions will have to be made but nobody is taking that political poison pill.
It just doesn’t make sense for schools with high numbers of affluent PK students to have PK3 anymore. PK 3 was originally implemented to serve economically disadvantaged children. Affluent children do not benefit from PK3 and it should therefore be eliminated from schools that may no longer offer Head Start. Head Start was doing DCPS a favor by allowing them to continue to serve schools with low percetanges of Head Start eligible. It makes no sense for a school with 25 Head Start eligible kids out of 110 PK kids to receive Head Start support.
Huh? The affluent families in our EotP DCPS beat down the door to access high quality public school PK3. My own children benefited greatly from it.
The reason our school has PK3 is because Tommy Wells supported its introduction 15 years ago, to try to keep families across the socioeconomic spectrum from running off to Two Rivers, one of the City's first charters and the only charter in the immediate neighborhood. With Two Rivers offering PK3 to affluent families but not traditional public schools, DCPS programs nearby couldn't compete in attracting the youngest students. Parents complained and the city council took note.
Anonymous
09/05/2019 22:42
Subject: Is it like this every year?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There is no way PK3 classrooms go away, from any of these schools. Some budget decisions will have to be made but nobody is taking that political poison pill.
It just doesn’t make sense for schools with high numbers of affluent PK students to have PK3 anymore. PK 3 was originally implemented to serve economically disadvantaged children. Affluent children do not benefit from PK3 and it should therefore be eliminated from schools that may no longer offer Head Start. Head Start was doing DCPS a favor by allowing them to continue to serve schools with low percetanges of Head Start eligible. It makes no sense for a school with 25 Head Start eligible kids out of 110 PK kids to receive Head Start support.
You’re nuts. Affluent kids don’t benefit from PK3? Bullshit. It’s extremely popular and beneficial to having women in the workforce. They will never get rid of existing programs they will just fund them without head start.
+1.
DP. But how many of these affluent families would have the women stay home if there wasn't free PK? Almost all of them would choose to pay for a couple of years of preschool if it was really finances that were leading someone to say home.
Anonymous
09/05/2019 22:40
Subject: Re:Is it like this every year?
Anonymous wrote:I won’t name the school but our charter had 10 families leave my child’s grade level that I noticed this far on the first day of school. I’m a little sad and disheartened but understand some people leave for work reasons, family reason and other personal reasons. I get it, it’s hard OP, even with DC’s changing demographics. This area is just highly transient.
It is a transient area and any school in the area will some people leave for a wide variety of reasons. But let's not pretend that different schools will have very different movement patterns. Some have lots of movement after the very early years, others have relative stability through elementary, and others keep relative stability throughout.
There can also be a difference between city and suburb. Even schools WOTP that are pretty stable have, on the whole, less stability than schools in the close-in suburbs. Though it is happening less these days, there are still plenty of families who move out of the city (or choose private) for middle or high school.
Anonymous
09/05/2019 22:27
Subject: Is it like this every year?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There is no way PK3 classrooms go away, from any of these schools. Some budget decisions will have to be made but nobody is taking that political poison pill.
It just doesn’t make sense for schools with high numbers of affluent PK students to have PK3 anymore. PK 3 was originally implemented to serve economically disadvantaged children. Affluent children do not benefit from PK3 and it should therefore be eliminated from schools that may no longer offer Head Start. Head Start was doing DCPS a favor by allowing them to continue to serve schools with low percetanges of Head Start eligible. It makes no sense for a school with 25 Head Start eligible kids out of 110 PK kids to receive Head Start support.
free PK has been the biggest driver of getting UMC families into underperforming title 1
Schools. Once there they are more likely to stick around a little more each year. Before that parents just moved before K. DCPS knows this and can’t take away PK now. All kids beenfit from good preschool!
Anonymous
09/05/2019 20:47
Subject: Is it like this every year?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Do you even know how DCPS calculates Title I status for schools? DCPS uses CEP to determine Title I status. Every school except Ludlow Taylor and Van Ness is above 90% for CEP. Ludlow is at 40% and Van Ness is at 35.5%.
Neither VN nor LT are T1 anymore.
Ludlow Taylor is still Title I for this current school year. Van Ness was able to qualify to be a Title I targeted assistance school this year.
https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/List%20of%20Title%20I%20Public%20Schools%20SY%2019-20.pdf
I didn't realize a school could lose its community eligibility provision eligibility and still be Title I. I had (obviously mistakenly) thought those were the same thing. Can someone explain how a school qualifies for T1 then? Is it just a slightly higher threshhold of the same thing or is it a different metric entirely?
There are two kinds of Title I programs: Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance.
A school is eligible to become a Title I Schoolwide Program if 40% or more of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch. Eligible schools are permitted to use Title I, Part A funds in combination with state and local resources and other federal education program funds to upgrade the entire educational program of the school to raise the academic achievement of all students.
A school is eligible to become a Title I Targeted Assistance Program if between 35-40% of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch. The term “targeted assistance” means that the services are provided to a select group of children—those identified as failing, or most at risk of failing, rather than for overall school improvement.
https://dcps.dc.gov/TitleI
Got it, thanks. So per the poster above, L-T is currently at 40% and VN is currently at 35.5%, so it's incredibly likely L-T is about to lose T1 status (and become a targeted assistance program) and VN is about to lose T1 targeted status?
At this point, LT will probably not even qualify for targeted assistance for SY 2020-2021. LT will probably only have a CEP rate of 33-35%. Van Ness probably won’t qualify for targeted assistance next year.
L-T hit the 40% exactly this year and I have to wonder if they intentionally didn't move the WL all summer until right after the determination was made knowing they were exactly on the bubble. (Notoriously, kids that accept late spots off of the WL tend to be higher SES b/c they are more likely to have the flexibility required and, in some cases, ability to forego aftercare.) FWIW, the extra 3 kids in my kid's class are all non-FARMS, so given how small L-T is, that might put them at 39% right there... Anyway, I might be conspiracy minded, but the Principal did a huge push for FARMS-eligible families to fill out the paper work/even chasing families over the summer (i.e., in time for the determination date)... as they should, but it suggests they were hyper-aware of the percentage they were at.
Ludlow Taylor was at 40% in February. This is the time when the DCPS Federal Programs Team reviews data from OSSE and makes a determination about whether schools will experience a change in Title I status. Notification letter are usually sent to principals and instructional superintendents
in late February or early March.
Anonymous
09/05/2019 15:45
Subject: Is it like this every year?
I'm guessing Bancroft Title 1/PK3 disappear in 2-3 years. It will essentially be a WOTP school unless DCPS does something about it.
I'm also going to guess more WOTP will start losing PK4. Stoddert has almost ended it, matter of time for Key, Mann, Janney, etc.
I'm also going to guess more WOTP will start losing PK4. Stoddert has almost ended it, matter of time for Key, Mann, Janney, etc.
Anonymous
09/05/2019 14:20
Subject: Is it like this every year?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There is no way PK3 classrooms go away, from any of these schools. Some budget decisions will have to be made but nobody is taking that political poison pill.
It just doesn’t make sense for schools with high numbers of affluent PK students to have PK3 anymore. PK 3 was originally implemented to serve economically disadvantaged children. Affluent children do not benefit from PK3 and it should therefore be eliminated from schools that may no longer offer Head Start. Head Start was doing DCPS a favor by allowing them to continue to serve schools with low percetanges of Head Start eligible. It makes no sense for a school with 25 Head Start eligible kids out of 110 PK kids to receive Head Start support.
PK3 was not "originally implemented to serve economically disadvantaged children." If this were so, it would only be open to these kids, and DCPS would save a lot of money. PK3 helps all children and working parents. In fact, DC goes further and guarantees PK3 to everyone, regardless of income, they just don't guarantee it at the neighborhood school.
The backlash on DCUM against middle and upper income parents attending PK3 is almost comical. It wasn't long ago that DC was begging middle income parents to attend public schools. PK3 brought these families into DCPS more than any other policy or demographic change, and many of those families choose to stay into K and beyond. PK3 has been a massive win for everyone, of all income levels. It's one of those rare policies that all sides approve. After years of steeply declining enrollment, there's a huge population boom at certain schools. The reason you see PK3 at some schools and not others is solely based on available space. At the most popular schools, there just isn't room. DCPS will address this, but it falls into the "good problem to have" category.
DCPS knows that without preschool parents they would lose a lot of PTA energy and $. Sorry but it's the truth.