Lee Montessori infant and toddler program

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand why you'd want this to be an area of focus for your school. Are you trying to argue that despite it being a tuition program, it is going to help poor children? Are you hopeful that it will come with some preference, so the type a Montessori folk who want Lee can self-select from six months on? Honestly, with all the needs that Lee, like every other charter school has, it seems insane that you'd want resources diverted for this.

Unless you were a current parent just hoping to put all your child care needs at a "one stop shop," which is probably accurate.

I don't think anyone here has offered an opinion on whether they want this to happen or not. It is something the school is committed to do to help broaden the reach of Montessori.

[Anonymous]

My assumption - the space they have will accommodate it.
The infant / toddler program could help pay for school overhead (revenue generator)
A selling point for teachers who may have preference (and children on site)

[Anonymous]

Statements like "to broaden the reach of Montessori" are why people mock teaching pedagogies for their cult-like aspects. And I say that as someone who loves Montessori.

A practical reason is actually okay. And probably in line with Maria Montessori's own line of thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Statements like "to broaden the reach of Montessori" are why people mock teaching pedagogies for their cult-like aspects. And I say that as someone who loves Montessori.

A practical reason is actually okay. And probably in line with Maria Montessori's own line of thought.

Okay, to help kids who wouldn't otherwise have the chance of a Montessori education get a head start. It's not about generating revenue or helping current families but about helping kids and families that need help. Nothing cultish about it.

[Anonymous]

The charter board would never let a fee-based program be used for admission preference, and I'm sure whoever is thinking about this knows that. If TD actually happening and not just cloud talk, it's probably a nice combination of mission-advancement and extra revenue.

[Anonymous]

I *think* Montessori might be a good fit for my 3yo kid, and Lee is one of my top choices but I'm hardly a true believer. nothing would have moved Lee to the top of the list faster than knowing that I would be able to have my toddler in daycare at the same place. i like her current daycare but its in the wrong direction and I'm trying to wrap my head around the dual drop-off and pick up next year. Not sure why people seem to be pooh-poohing the obvious positives:
- practicality for current parents with younger sibs. (i'm no expert in charter law, but I'm assuming nothing would prevent the school from offering preference for a spot in the daycare. the other way around - offering preference to the charter school for daycare parents - would be mpermissible.)
-montessori programs designed for babies already exist. presumably a lot of parents at the school genuinely think are positives to a montessori education and would be game for starting even younger?
-revenue generator for the school

[Anonymous]

It is smart, albeit calculated.

Current students with younger sibs would then be able to drop the younger ones off there too, and down the road have sibling preference for them. So it wouldn't help anyone get into Lee, but it will keep them there, which will limit non-sibling spots.

The unfortunate aspect of this is that only people with means will be able to afford the program. It is a backdoor way of self-selecting an affluent student body.

Are you okay with that? I guess that depends on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is smart, albeit calculated.

Current students with younger sibs would then be able to drop the younger ones off there too, and down the road have sibling preference for them. So it wouldn't help anyone get into Lee, but it will keep them there, which will limit non-sibling spots.

The unfortunate aspect of this is that only people with means will be able to afford the program. It is a backdoor way of self-selecting an affluent student body.

Are you okay with that? I guess that depends on you.

I think it is more about creating a revenue stream - the way some charters run their own aftercare and put any profits into the main school. So long as children in this program did not have feeder rights to Lee I don't have an issue with it.

[Anonymous]

I think it is more about creating a revenue stream - the way some charters run their own aftercare and put any profits into the main school. So long as children in this program did not have feeder rights to Lee I don't have an issue with it

They will take sibling slots. I have an only child and no interest in Lee, except in the abstract, but I think there might be something problematic about charging money for a program, and then having students feeding into the free charter program by virtue of being siblings. Doesn't affect me one way or the other--I just think this might set a problematic precedent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think it is more about creating a revenue stream - the way some charters run their own aftercare and put any profits into the main school. So long as children in this program did not have feeder rights to Lee I don't have an issue with it

They will take sibling slots. I have an only child and no interest in Lee, except in the abstract, but I think there might be something problematic about charging money for a program, and then having students feeding into the free charter program by virtue of being siblings. Doesn't affect me one way or the other--I just think this might set a problematic precedent.

That's no different than how it is now. An older child has to enter Lee for PK3 or above via the lottery. If their infant sibling attends this preschool/daycare as opposed to another, nothing wrong with that.

The issue would be if the a child could start in the paid preschool/day care and get some leg up into Lee PK3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is smart, albeit calculated.

Current students with younger sibs would then be able to drop the younger ones off there too, and down the road have sibling preference for them. So it wouldn't help anyone get into Lee, but it will keep them there, which will limit non-sibling spots.

The unfortunate aspect of this is that only people with means will be able to afford the program. It is a backdoor way of self-selecting an affluent student body.

Are you okay with that? I guess that depends on you.

This is the exact opposite of the rationale behind this. The administration hopes to use this as a way to get lower income families interested in Montessori, and to get the opportunity to start even younger with kids who may not have support at home (like books, being read to etc). They are seeking funding to be able to offer this at low cost or free to families in need.

[Anonymous]

Families with younger siblings like mine, would love to start the 1-stop drop off a couple of years sooner, rather than wait until the youngest is 3 years-old. Sibling preference would not change at all if there was an on-site infant/toddler program, but the amount of at-home time my kids get to spend with their working parent would go up from 2h/day to 3h/day, because of the improved daily commutes.

Nothing says that this infant/toddler program would be any more expensive than any other infant/toddler program in the city, so if it doesn't confer preference in admission to PK3 (which is obvious it would never), it is completely unfair to tag it a "backdoor way of self-selecting an affluent student body". It wouldn't be selecting families any more affluent than all the families who have no option but to pay for full-time daycare in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is smart, albeit calculated.

Current students with younger sibs would then be able to drop the younger ones off there too, and down the road have sibling preference for them. So it wouldn't help anyone get into Lee, but it will keep them there, which will limit non-sibling spots.

The unfortunate aspect of this is that only people with means will be able to afford the program. It is a backdoor way of self-selecting an affluent student body.

Are you okay with that? I guess that depends on you.

This is the exact opposite of the rationale behind this. The administration hopes to use this as a way to get lower income families interested in Montessori, and to get the opportunity to start even younger with kids who may not have support at home (like books, being read to etc). They are seeking funding to be able to offer this at low cost or free to families in need.

Yes, they are looking into head start funding. They really are a committed to a school that serves all of DC's kids. I think they believe the high ses families can help them in this mission with our physical and financial support, but they don't want to be a high ses school and do believe in the value of Montessori for underprivileged kids. As a Lee parent, I just want my administrators to be happy and fulfilled so they stay, because they are good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is smart, albeit calculated.

Current students with younger sibs would then be able to drop the younger ones off there too, and down the road have sibling preference for them. So it wouldn't help anyone get into Lee, but it will keep them there, which will limit non-sibling spots.

The unfortunate aspect of this is that only people with means will be able to afford the program. It is a backdoor way of self-selecting an affluent student body.

Are you okay with that? I guess that depends on you.

This is the exact opposite of the rationale behind this. The administration hopes to use this as a way to get lower income families interested in Montessori, and to get the opportunity to start even younger with kids who may not have support at home (like books, being read to etc). They are seeking funding to be able to offer this at low cost or free to families in need.

Yes, they are looking into head start funding. They really are a committed to a school that serves all of DC's kids. I think they believe the high ses families can help them in this mission with our physical and financial support, but they don't want to be a high ses school and do believe in the value of Montessori for underprivileged kids. As a Lee parent, I just want my administrators to be happy and fulfilled so they stay, because they are good.

Want to clarify, that they believe an infant and toddler Montessori program will be wonderful for the underprivileged kids enrolled in it and this is why they are doing it. This is their passion (yes school administrators can have passions that extend beyond being a popular DCUM school for high ses families!). Current families will likely be able to get their kids in, but the goal is Montessori for all, which is why they've provided so much support to Breakthough.

[Anonymous]

If Lee cared about providing Montessori to children without books, it would expand its elementary classrooms to do so. Adding a sibling preference for those able to pay for it, will not expand its outreach to children who grow up "without books." (From what I've seen, a somewhat mythical concept across all income groups.) In any case, children who are growing up "without books" are probably also growing up without paid daycare--of any kind, and being looked after by their parents or relatives.

Other head start programs generally have books as well.