Will the PCSB move to force LAMB to back-fill after PK4?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hysteria on both sides is so overblown. LAMB should be able to integrate a handful of new students in grades past PK4, but probably not all later grades. Certainly K. It's not going to break the school that's ludicrous. It makes people mad that LAMB doesn't backfill and ends up losing half the class because the unfilled spaces seem squandered. And the fact that they add additional PK4 seats doesn't solve the problem because the K spots seem squandered to the parents in the K grade. But also, obviously LAMB serves the public and does it well and isn't motivated by neferious reasons. But the super restrictive entry years make people feel it's elitist and unnecessarily exclusive, and that's why they get upset.

They are stupid for getting upset, because LAMB isn't losing half the class between PK4 and K or even PK4 and 1. You don't need to have class sizes that are exactly the same all the way up. The model of front-loading ECE to accommodate attrition is just a different way of structuring the school.

I don't think they are stupid. Some kids leave in K, and the parents are annoyed that somebody took a coveted spot and then left in K and there is nothing to be done about it. It is a spot that their kid could have theoretically had (not likely but possible). Filling with PK4 doesn't help the K parents. Filling in K would at least make it better so that people don't use coveted spots just for preschool years and then leave for K. Again, not a lot of people, but maybe some. The point that it is no a lot of people really supports the argument that its not going to make a big difference for the school but could make a big difference for a couple kids.

As has been pointed out before, adding kids in K would mean entirely changing their curriculum where K kids are partnered with Pk3 kids. A big part of being a kindergartener is being a leader in the classroom. Kids filled in K would miss out on this and two years of Spanish. It means totally reworking the way the school is run. It would be a HUGE difference for a school and would make a less than 1% difference for other kids.

Yet, Aiden Montessori can pull it off all the way to 6th grade. Somehow it doesn't sound like the possibility breaks the model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was very high on the WL for LAMB last year and was told that if they lose kids starting kinder they sometimes backfill those slots with more pre-k 4 kids. In the end my kid got into LAMB. To me the fact that they don't take older kids is less bad than not joining the common lottery (that decision has a net loss of utility for everyone because it leads to inefficient matching). I hope the charter board makes their expansion contingent on joining the common lottery.

No talk of that at all - would be very surprised. But they were reading and referencing the few (<5) public comments they received so perhaps you should submit it.

Thanks. I submitted a comment - not sure if it is too late though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not the poster you are responding to, but how do you equate their restricted entry years to "taking public funding without serving the public"? This is an extremely offensive charge about a Tier 1 charter that has done an exemplary job of educating students. Even their split lottery was an attempt to get more native Spanish speakers into the program, which not only helped the quality of the program but also helped get more low-income kids into the school. It is no coincidence that the FARMS rate has been falling since they got rid of the dual lottery. (And I say that a parent who applied under the dual lottery knowing that our chances as a native English family were much lower.)

Again, I don't understand why so many people want to bitch at LAMB for doing things their way when they are obviously meeting the challenge of educating their students effectively and expanding to accommodate as many kids as they can.

NP here. Imagine if our neighborhood school restricted entry after a certain year. You'd say that's unfair, and not serving the public, right? But it would seriously improve things for the students at the school. All the kids would pick up the school culture / educational benefits from an early age...

It's just not the right policy answer for a public school.

That's also why test-in specialty schools need to be centrally managed. You can't just start that up all over the place and still claim to have a public system.

[Anonymous]

It's ironic that the reason LAMB has to worry/consider this now is because they are in front of the DCPCS Board to add a large number of new seats to accommodate new families. I feel badly for them for having their educational model screwed with as they try to open the school up to more kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not the poster you are responding to, but how do you equate their restricted entry years to "taking public funding without serving the public"? This is an extremely offensive charge about a Tier 1 charter that has done an exemplary job of educating students. Even their split lottery was an attempt to get more native Spanish speakers into the program, which not only helped the quality of the program but also helped get more low-income kids into the school. It is no coincidence that the FARMS rate has been falling since they got rid of the dual lottery. (And I say that a parent who applied under the dual lottery knowing that our chances as a native English family were much lower.)

Again, I don't understand why so many people want to bitch at LAMB for doing things their way when they are obviously meeting the challenge of educating their students effectively and expanding to accommodate as many kids as they can.

NP here. Imagine if our neighborhood school restricted entry after a certain year. You'd say that's unfair, and not serving the public, right? But it would seriously improve things for the students at the school. All the kids would pick up the school culture / educational benefits from an early age...

It's just not the right policy answer for a public school.

That's also why test-in specialty schools need to be centrally managed. You can't just start that up all over the place and still claim to have a public system.

Perhaps you don't understand the charter school system. Each school is, in fact, its own school district. Having an individual model is the whole point.

[Anonymous]

But they have to meet the same requirements as a public school district - which is why setting enrollment restrictions is problematic.

DCPS can do it at Logan and Oyster bc they can offer people different placements. LAMB isn't running a non-Montessori, monolingual elementary school for everyone who doesn't get in at PK3 or PK4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But they have to meet the same requirements as a public school district - which is why setting enrollment restrictions is problematic.

DCPS can do it at Logan and Oyster bc they can offer people different placements. LAMB isn't running a non-Montessori, monolingual elementary school for everyone who doesn't get in at PK3 or PK4.

LAMB isn't a school district idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's ironic that the reason LAMB has to worry/consider this now is because they are in front of the DCPCS Board to add a large number of new seats to accommodate new families. I feel badly for them for having their educational model screwed with as they try to open the school up to more kids.

Lamb parent here- I'm perfectly happy if their expansion is halted. It was the happiest day of my life when my eldest was admitted. I'd love to have as many people have that experience, but not at the expense of the school as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But they have to meet the same requirements as a public school district - which is why setting enrollment restrictions is problematic.

DCPS can do it at Logan and Oyster bc they can offer people different placements. LAMB isn't running a non-Montessori, monolingual elementary school for everyone who doesn't get in at PK3 or PK4.

It is permitted to restrict entry to certain years. Don't confuse that with their responsibility to provide an appropriate education for all their enrolled students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And LAMB's current policy is working for its students. The PCSB should seek for solutions to help all students, not just a small handful which will almost certainly not do as well as other LAMB students, and will reduce the quality of education of those already there.

Instead of wrecking what works, they should try to create better solutions for more kids. Sure, forcing the school to go against its mission and research will make a few loudmouths happy, but it really doesn't make a positive change for anyone.

Nobody wants to "break" LAMB, but their current policy needs to work for the public sector, not a select few. Every other public Montessori in the city accept children older than 4, it stands to reason that a few of them won't hurt LAMB either, unless it's such a fragile entity that it doesn't actually deserve public support. As for language, if Oyster (and Yu Ying) can handle some new 5 year olds, (and produce better test results, one might add) then LAMB should too.

Oyster has the benefit of a built in wealthy demographic. They are also allowed to screen for native Spanish speakers. Give lamb those two bonuses and we will see how the test scores go. Yu Ying does IB, which is different as has been explained many times. They also have an "English track" for those who do t speak Chinese well enough. Neither one of your examples does Bilingual and Montessori. This would only assist maybe under 5 kids a year, if that. And it would reduce the number of PK4 spots. I think the only thing it would do is make some people happy since they feel shut out.

LAMB's demographic skews very high SES. The only HRCs with higher SES are YY and CM, though MV may be close. Stokes & DC Bi accept students at later grades, and Stokes does French as well. Montessori does not add a great level of complexity, if it did then Montessori schools all over the country (not to mention just DC) wouldn't continue to add students after age 4. Furthermore, YY doesn't have an English track. It has a specialized classroom for students with specialized education needs. Not at all the same thing.

Lamb has the highest percentage of English Language Learners in DC. The lower grades are more high Ses. Not at Yu Ying but it is my understanding that YY does have a classroom for students who struggle with Chinese. LAMB does not have this for Spanish. Montessori is in fact complex enough that DCPS schools do limit admission in the upper grades. Do your research before you post lies online.

Lamb 2014-15

342 students
Special Ed - 12.3%
ELL - 37.7%
Econ Disadvantaged - 24%

Yu Ying 2014-15

528 students
Special Ed - 8.3%
ELL - 5.9%
Econ Disadvantaged 9.5%

For a DC public school, 24% is pretty well off. Noinfección en el oídoSo that point goes right out the window. Couldn't find the SpEd data, but MV looks a lot like LAMB. MV has slightly lower ELL, but much higher FARMS. Stokes has similar ELL and very much higher FARMS.

The case for LAMB needing special rules just doesn't seem to be there.

Mundo Verde
237 students
SpEd - ?
ELL - 33%
FARMS - 27%

DC BI
405 students
SpEd - 12%
ELL - ?
FARMS - 86%

Shining Stars Montessori
165 students
SpEd - 4%
ELL - 19%
FARMS - 38%

Stokes
350 students
SpEd - 10%
ELL - 34%
FARMS - 68%

Bridges
143 students
SpEd - 24%
ELL - 40%
FARMS - 68%

Hmm...the PARCC and other tests are only administered in English. So NO, it would not be an advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And LAMB's current policy is working for its students. The PCSB should seek for solutions to help all students, not just a small handful which will almost certainly not do as well as other LAMB students, and will reduce the quality of education of those already there.

Instead of wrecking what works, they should try to create better solutions for more kids. Sure, forcing the school to go against its mission and research will make a few loudmouths happy, but it really doesn't make a positive change for anyone.

Nobody wants to "break" LAMB, but their current policy needs to work for the public sector, not a select few. Every other public Montessori in the city accept children older than 4, it stands to reason that a few of them won't hurt LAMB either, unless it's such a fragile entity that it doesn't actually deserve public support. As for language, if Oyster (and Yu Ying) can handle some new 5 year olds, (and produce better test results, one might add) then LAMB should too.

Oyster has the benefit of a built in wealthy demographic. They are also allowed to screen for native Spanish speakers. Give lamb those two bonuses and we will see how the test scores go. Yu Ying does IB, which is different as has been explained many times. They also have an "English track" for those who do t speak Chinese well enough. Neither one of your examples does Bilingual and Montessori. This would only assist maybe under 5 kids a year, if that. And it would reduce the number of PK4 spots. I think the only thing it would do is make some people happy since they feel shut out.

LAMB's demographic skews very high SES. The only HRCs with higher SES are YY and CM, though MV may be close. Stokes & DC Bi accept students at later grades, and Stokes does French as well. Montessori does not add a great level of complexity, if it did then Montessori schools all over the country (not to mention just DC) wouldn't continue to add students after age 4. Furthermore, YY doesn't have an English track. It has a specialized classroom for students with specialized education needs. Not at all the same thing.

Lamb has the highest percentage of English Language Learners in DC. The lower grades are more high Ses. Not at Yu Ying but it is my understanding that YY does have a classroom for students who struggle with Chinese. LAMB does not have this for Spanish. Montessori is in fact complex enough that DCPS schools do limit admission in the upper grades. Do your research before you post lies online.

No dog in this but FYI, LAMB does not have the highest percentage of ELLs in DC. Bancroft has over 50 percent, and if you check the other DCPS immersions there may be several others that are high. Also check Tubman and HD Cooke.

[Anonymous]

PP meant among charters - and then corrected to say DC Bilingual does.

The DCPS ones screen for language so will always be higher / more balanced by design.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP meant among charters - and then corrected to say DC Bilingual does.

The DCPS ones screen for language so will always be higher / more balanced by design.

Bridges also has higher ELL, based on what was posted above, and several have percentages similar to LAMB if a bit lower.

screening at dual language DCPS didn't happen until last year or the year before, except at Oyster. LAMB probably has by far the longest history of language screening of any DC school, charter or DCPS, except Oyster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

For a DC public school, 24% is pretty well off. Not to mention, how exactly is it a handicap to be an ELL native Spanish speaker in an immersion environment where the target language is Spanish? If anything, one could argue it's an advantage. So that point goes right out the window. Couldn't find the SpEd data, but MV looks a lot like LAMB. MV has slightly lower ELL, but much higher FARMS. Stokes has similar ELL and very much higher FARMS.
------------------------
I have seen firsthand that being an ELL native Spanish speaker is a disadvantage in LIFE in the United States. (I am a parent of a former ELL child at LAMB). Being able to understand your teacher for the Spanish portion of the day in school is nice. But far worse than not understanding your teacher for half the day is the fact that an ELL kid is not able to understand the following main aspects of American culture: other kids, the parents of other kids, activities in English, casual interactions in stores, TV, radio, English language tests, etc. These aspects of American culture are all fundamental to being able to live and succeed in the US.

LAMB was founded as a dual language school with the intent to serve Latino (and other populations) that needed a high-quality public school to boost educational levels. Dual language education has been demonstrated to more effectively teach ELL students than monolingual English education. The LAMB model is intended first and foremost for disadvantaged native Spanish speakers - it has the added bonus of teaching the English speaking kids Spanish. So, I don't think you should say that it is not a handicap to be an ELL native Spanish speaker at any school, LAMB or otherwise....it is precisely because it is a disadvantage to be ELL (anywhere) that LAMB was founded to support these kids.

Also, ELL tends to be a marker of lower SES status, although that is not always the case. Lower SES and lower educational levels of a child's mother disadvantages children educationally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's ironic that the reason LAMB has to worry/consider this now is because they are in front of the DCPCS Board to add a large number of new seats to accommodate new families. I feel badly for them for having their educational model screwed with as they try to open the school up to more kids.

+1

I'm amazed at the at all of the brainpower being spent analyzing and critiquing LAMB. People here in DCUM really seem to know best how they should run that school. Maybe the best way to show how much smarter you are than LAMB's leadership would be to use all of that brainpower to complete your own charter application for your ideal bilingual Montessori school. Then you can admit kids of all ages and really show LAMB how it should be done.