Breakthrough Montessori Family Orientation

[Anonymous]

My one concern would be about the class balancing. Do they have any concern with having larger groups of 3 year olds? (I'm assuming the answer is no).

Based on its location and use of the term "Montessori", I'd be shocked if the FARMs rate for next year is very high. I'm on the WL and those who I know who are either in or WLed are all white or mixed race middle to upper class Petworthians/Cola Heights families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My one concern would be about the class balancing. Do they have any concern with having larger groups of 3 year olds? (I'm assuming the answer is no).

Based on its location and use of the term "Montessori", I'd be shocked if the FARMs rate for next year is very high. I'm on the WL and those who I know who are either in or WLed are all white or mixed race middle to upper class Petworthians/Cola Heights families.

Well, I hope you're wrong, because the Breakthrough charter application went into great detail about serving at-risk kids. Hopefully they did good outreach and will meet this goal.

[Anonymous]

Different locations, but "Montessori" didn't scare economically disadvantaged parents away from SS or Lee.

Their FARMS rates are 30% and 22% respectively. And there will be 10-20% children with SN in the preschool cohort - some mild, some more complex.

It's a public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Different locations, but "Montessori" didn't scare economically disadvantaged parents away from SS or Lee.

Their FARMS rates are 30% and 22% respectively. And there will be 10-20% children with SN in the preschool cohort - some mild, some more complex.

It's a public school.

That's still MUCH lower than they predicted in their charter applications. Lee predicted 70%-80% of students would be economically disadvantaged. http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/report/Lee%2BMontessori%2BPCS%2BApplication%2Bpt.1.compressed.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you attend a Montessori school you have to understand what that means. It does not mean that you can come in a demand "specials".

However, most Montessori schools incorporate a lot of music, singing and art into the classroom.

I'm confused by your comment. My daughter has been in a Montessori school for the last three years. Majority if not all is the Montessori schools I checked out in NY (originally from NY) and DC (including Barrie) allows the children to visit a "specialist," (to include art, music, and language) during "work" periods.

So, again....I'm confused by your comment.

Real montessori does not have work periods interrupted by specials. It is not a part of the montessori curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how people say they want fidelity Montesorri, and yet demand smaller class sizes.. make up your mind, please

I am the one who talked about class size. Actually I don't care about fidelity to Montessori. I think it's better to meet the needs of children than to have strict fidelity to a certain model.

Well, Montessori herself designed class sizes and everything else with children's needs in mind, and large class sizes are in fact tailored closer to children's needs than smaller ones.. So I have hard time interpreting your comment other than thinking that people rarely know what Montessori is really about, they are just impressed by how Lee and others perform, and assume for whatever reason that they know better than these guys who have spent their lives thinking about these.. that it is still better to have smaller classes, and that it is still better to have half-days, etc.. This is why you end up with weird combinations of traditional and Montessori that make very little sense and based on opinions of parents who have much less knowledge in education than any of those guys that designed these systems.. It's just sad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you attend a Montessori school you have to understand what that means. It does not mean that you can come in a demand "specials".

However, most Montessori schools incorporate a lot of music, singing and art into the classroom.

I'm confused by your comment. My daughter has been in a Montessori school for the last three years. Majority if not all is the Montessori schools I checked out in NY (originally from NY) and DC (including Barrie) allows the children to visit a "specialist," (to include art, music, and language) during "work" periods.

So, again....I'm confused by your comment.

Real montessori does not have work periods interrupted by specials. It is not a part of the montessori curriculum.

+1
These interruptions are another example of how parents think they know better than everybody else how to approach education in general, resulting in "Montessori" schools that are not really Montessori and are closer to traditional than one might think

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how people say they want fidelity Montesorri, and yet demand smaller class sizes.. make up your mind, please

I am the one who talked about class size. Actually I don't care about fidelity to Montessori. I think it's better to meet the needs of children than to have strict fidelity to a certain model.

Well, Montessori herself designed class sizes and everything else with children's needs in mind, and large class sizes are in fact tailored closer to children's needs than smaller ones.. So I have hard time interpreting your comment other than thinking that people rarely know what Montessori is really about, they are just impressed by how Lee and others perform, and assume for whatever reason that they know better than these guys who have spent their lives thinking about these.. that it is still better to have smaller classes, and that it is still better to have half-days, etc.. This is why you end up with weird combinations of traditional and Montessori that make very little sense and based on opinions of parents who have much less knowledge in education than any of those guys that designed these systems.. It's just sad

Montessori lived 100 years ago, so I don't think it's inappropriate to update or tweak her model. For example, it probably works very poorly with special needs kids ... yet ALL schools have an obligation to meet the needs of special needs kids if they can. Plus with the space limitations in DC it would be very tough to have 35 kids in a primary class together and not have it be unbearably (and perhaps unsafely) crowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how people say they want fidelity Montesorri, and yet demand smaller class sizes.. make up your mind, please

I am the one who talked about class size. Actually I don't care about fidelity to Montessori. I think it's better to meet the needs of children than to have strict fidelity to a certain model.

Well, Montessori herself designed class sizes and everything else with children's needs in mind, and large class sizes are in fact tailored closer to children's needs than smaller ones.. So I have hard time interpreting your comment other than thinking that people rarely know what Montessori is really about, they are just impressed by how Lee and others perform, and assume for whatever reason that they know better than these guys who have spent their lives thinking about these.. that it is still better to have smaller classes, and that it is still better to have half-days, etc.. This is why you end up with weird combinations of traditional and Montessori that make very little sense and based on opinions of parents who have much less knowledge in education than any of those guys that designed these systems.. It's just sad

Montessori lived 100 years ago, so I don't think it's inappropriate to update or tweak her model. For example, it probably works very poorly with special needs kids ... yet ALL schools have an obligation to meet the needs of special needs kids if they can. Plus with the space limitations in DC it would be very tough to have 35 kids in a primary class together and not have it be unbearably (and perhaps unsafely) crowded.

It is not "inappropriate" to tweak her model, of course, but it is no longer her model if you tweak some of the key things, such as class size, and uninterrupted long work periods. These two are really key in her approach. As for special needs kids, you don't think they did not exist 100 years ago, do you? Plus Montessori started with low income and at risk kids initially and transitioned to better-off families after the success of its structure, so it is nicely tailored for these issues.. If you don't like original Montessori, why stick with Breakthrough or Lee, go with SS, or Logan, or any other Montessori apart from these two for that matter, they have what you want - Montessori tweaked to resemble traditional..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how people say they want fidelity Montesorri, and yet demand smaller class sizes.. make up your mind, please

I am the one who talked about class size. Actually I don't care about fidelity to Montessori. I think it's better to meet the needs of children than to have strict fidelity to a certain model.

Well, Montessori herself designed class sizes and everything else with children's needs in mind, and large class sizes are in fact tailored closer to children's needs than smaller ones.. So I have hard time interpreting your comment other than thinking that people rarely know what Montessori is really about, they are just impressed by how Lee and others perform, and assume for whatever reason that they know better than these guys who have spent their lives thinking about these.. that it is still better to have smaller classes, and that it is still better to have half-days, etc.. This is why you end up with weird combinations of traditional and Montessori that make very little sense and based on opinions of parents who have much less knowledge in education than any of those guys that designed these systems.. It's just sad

Montessori lived 100 years ago, so I don't think it's inappropriate to update or tweak her model. For example, it probably works very poorly with special needs kids ... yet ALL schools have an obligation to meet the needs of special needs kids if they can. Plus with the space limitations in DC it would be very tough to have 35 kids in a primary class together and not have it be unbearably (and perhaps unsafely) crowded.

It is not "inappropriate" to tweak her model, of course, but it is no longer her model if you tweak some of the key things, such as class size, and uninterrupted long work periods. These two are really key in her approach. As for special needs kids, you don't think they did not exist 100 years ago, do you? Plus Montessori started with low income and at risk kids initially and transitioned to better-off families after the success of its structure, so it is nicely tailored for these issues.. If you don't like original Montessori, why stick with Breakthrough or Lee, go with SS, or Logan, or any other Montessori apart from these two for that matter, they have what you want - Montessori tweaked to resemble traditional..

Well, these are public schools, not private schools. So they have to meet the needs of their populations, rather than "fidelity" to a person who died 100 years ago. There is a degree of tension between a bespoke and fairly rigid educational philosophy, and the needs of the public sector. If what YOU want is 100% fidelity to Montessori, then you should probably go private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how people say they want fidelity Montesorri, and yet demand smaller class sizes.. make up your mind, please

I am the one who talked about class size. Actually I don't care about fidelity to Montessori. I think it's better to meet the needs of children than to have strict fidelity to a certain model.

Well, Montessori herself designed class sizes and everything else with children's needs in mind, and large class sizes are in fact tailored closer to children's needs than smaller ones.. So I have hard time interpreting your comment other than thinking that people rarely know what Montessori is really about, they are just impressed by how Lee and others perform, and assume for whatever reason that they know better than these guys who have spent their lives thinking about these.. that it is still better to have smaller classes, and that it is still better to have half-days, etc.. This is why you end up with weird combinations of traditional and Montessori that make very little sense and based on opinions of parents who have much less knowledge in education than any of those guys that designed these systems.. It's just sad

Montessori lived 100 years ago, so I don't think it's inappropriate to update or tweak her model. For example, it probably works very poorly with special needs kids ... yet ALL schools have an obligation to meet the needs of special needs kids if they can. Plus with the space limitations in DC it would be very tough to have 35 kids in a primary class together and not have it be unbearably (and perhaps unsafely) crowded.

It is not "inappropriate" to tweak her model, of course, but it is no longer her model if you tweak some of the key things, such as class size, and uninterrupted long work periods. These two are really key in her approach. As for special needs kids, you don't think they did not exist 100 years ago, do you? Plus Montessori started with low income and at risk kids initially and transitioned to better-off families after the success of its structure, so it is nicely tailored for these issues.. If you don't like original Montessori, why stick with Breakthrough or Lee, go with SS, or Logan, or any other Montessori apart from these two for that matter, they have what you want - Montessori tweaked to resemble traditional..

Well, these are public schools, not private schools. So they have to meet the needs of their populations, rather than "fidelity" to a person who died 100 years ago. There is a degree of tension between a bespoke and fairly rigid educational philosophy, and the needs of the public sector. If what YOU want is 100% fidelity to Montessori, then you should probably go private.

It is not about fidelity to anyone, it is about calling things what they are and public schools in particular are not supposed to have misleading names such as calling themselves Montessori when they really aren't.. I find it interesting that when someone has a heath problem they don't go philosophizing whether or not they should tweak the treatment regiment as they non-doctors see fit, but rather seek professional help; while when kid's education is messed up, everyone is ready to tweak everything including by adding things that failed over and over again

[Anonymous]

This whole thread convinces me that the clamor for montessori has nothing to do with montessori itself, but the perception that more well-off families will be drawn to it and hence, low FARMS. It's pretty sickening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how people say they want fidelity Montesorri, and yet demand smaller class sizes.. make up your mind, please

I am the one who talked about class size. Actually I don't care about fidelity to Montessori. I think it's better to meet the needs of children than to have strict fidelity to a certain model.

Well, Montessori herself designed class sizes and everything else with children's needs in mind, and large class sizes are in fact tailored closer to children's needs than smaller ones.. So I have hard time interpreting your comment other than thinking that people rarely know what Montessori is really about, they are just impressed by how Lee and others perform, and assume for whatever reason that they know better than these guys who have spent their lives thinking about these.. that it is still better to have smaller classes, and that it is still better to have half-days, etc.. This is why you end up with weird combinations of traditional and Montessori that make very little sense and based on opinions of parents who have much less knowledge in education than any of those guys that designed these systems.. It's just sad

Montessori lived 100 years ago, so I don't think it's inappropriate to update or tweak her model. For example, it probably works very poorly with special needs kids ... yet ALL schools have an obligation to meet the needs of special needs kids if they can. Plus with the space limitations in DC it would be very tough to have 35 kids in a primary class together and not have it be unbearably (and perhaps unsafely) crowded.

It is not "inappropriate" to tweak her model, of course, but it is no longer her model if you tweak some of the key things, such as class size, and uninterrupted long work periods. These two are really key in her approach. As for special needs kids, you don't think they did not exist 100 years ago, do you? Plus Montessori started with low income and at risk kids initially and transitioned to better-off families after the success of its structure, so it is nicely tailored for these issues.. If you don't like original Montessori, why stick with Breakthrough or Lee, go with SS, or Logan, or any other Montessori apart from these two for that matter, they have what you want - Montessori tweaked to resemble traditional..

Well, these are public schools, not private schools. So they have to meet the needs of their populations, rather than "fidelity" to a person who died 100 years ago. There is a degree of tension between a bespoke and fairly rigid educational philosophy, and the needs of the public sector. If what YOU want is 100% fidelity to Montessori, then you should probably go private.

It is not about fidelity to anyone, it is about calling things what they are and public schools in particular are not supposed to have misleading names such as calling themselves Montessori when they really aren't.. I find it interesting that when someone has a heath problem they don't go philosophizing whether or not they should tweak the treatment regiment as they non-doctors see fit, but rather seek professional help; while when kid's education is messed up, everyone is ready to tweak everything including by adding things that failed over and over again

Huh? Montessori is not a medicine, like antibiotics. It's self-evident that Montessori in the public schools has to consider a range of factors that may be incompatible with "fidelity" to a specific educational model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My one concern would be about the class balancing. Do they have any concern with having larger groups of 3 year olds? (I'm assuming the answer is no).

Based on its location and use of the term "Montessori", I'd be shocked if the FARMs rate for next year is very high. I'm on the WL and those who I know who are either in or WLed are all white or mixed race middle to upper class Petworthians/Cola Heights families.

Well, I hope you're wrong, because the Breakthrough charter application went into great detail about serving at-risk kids. Hopefully they did good outreach and will meet this goal.

isnt that just some BS to get approval? Its a lottery so its already self selecting to the parents who make the effort. Also, location is a huge factor. Its in a super gentfiying area of a bunch of families who are likley getting shut out of Creative Minds. I know, cause we are one of them in Petworth. Who cares. this is just reality of charters. I am just jealous I didn't get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My one concern would be about the class balancing. Do they have any concern with having larger groups of 3 year olds? (I'm assuming the answer is no).

Based on its location and use of the term "Montessori", I'd be shocked if the FARMs rate for next year is very high. I'm on the WL and those who I know who are either in or WLed are all white or mixed race middle to upper class Petworthians/Cola Heights families.

Well, I hope you're wrong, because the Breakthrough charter application went into great detail about serving at-risk kids. Hopefully they did good outreach and will meet this goal.

isnt that just some BS to get approval? Its a lottery so its already self selecting to the parents who make the effort. Also, location is a huge factor. Its in a super gentfiying area of a bunch of families who are likley getting shut out of Creative Minds. I know, cause we are one of them in Petworth. Who cares. this is just reality of charters. I am just jealous I didn't get in.

I don't buy the argument that charters are less "at-risk", "FARM", "minority", whatever because those entering the lottery are more motivated families. There are plenty of charters that are almost 100% low-income, minority, FARM, fill-in-the-blank, because those charters really do make an effort to recruit from these populations. I really do wonder about some of these other charters who claim to be focused on at-risk populations, but what exactly are doing to serve these populations?