Math at LAMB

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the bead frame is used to teach base ten numbers in montessori. it’s color coded and easy for my 5 year old to understand. she can skip count and now has a good foundation in number sense, not just wrote learning.

That is fine but I do not know how to use a bead frame or an abacus, and we are not using a bead frame at all. I think it is unreasonable to expect parents to be the ones to teach children how to use archaic equipment.

the Montessori method is pretty tactile in general -- I get the point in using the various equipment they use because of their understanding of how kids learn. I don't profess to understand Montessori methods fully, but I think it's just that you make a choice when you enroll your kids, that they will be using these methods and techniques.

This. If you’re this annoyed about an abacus you may not be right for Montessori.

Also who sent this email? I never saw anything like this.

And: try looking up how to use an abacus. It’s actually pretty cool.

PP wasn't annoyed about the use of tha abacus, but about the expectation she teach it with no support or guidance

Good lord. It wasn’t an expectation, just a suggestion for a fun math supporting activity for summer alongside things like “read to your child”. A website to learn more was linked.

Some people…

Completely agree with PP directly above. It was an end-of-year email from the principal that (without pressuring parents), listed several ideas for those parents who were looking for "enrichment-type" activities to do over the summer. I actually thought that the suggestion of the abacus was spot on and a really good (cheaper and more easily available) analogue to a Montessori bead board. I also agree that there are reasons for parents to pay attention to both math and reading skills, and to take PARCC scores as one piece of information along with several other pieces of information. But outrage over an email providing several suggestions for summer activities (without any implication that parents are expected to teach these skills) seems like an odd place to put your frustration.

The LAMB defenders are in the house!

There's no 'outrage'. Calm down. A person's mild criticism is that parents are not taught Montessori pedagogy, but there's a suggestion that we should know it. It's ok.

Except there was no suggestion whatsoever of this, so it's complete BS and weird, to be honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the bead frame is used to teach base ten numbers in montessori. it’s color coded and easy for my 5 year old to understand. she can skip count and now has a good foundation in number sense, not just wrote learning.

That is fine but I do not know how to use a bead frame or an abacus, and we are not using a bead frame at all. I think it is unreasonable to expect parents to be the ones to teach children how to use archaic equipment.

the Montessori method is pretty tactile in general -- I get the point in using the various equipment they use because of their understanding of how kids learn. I don't profess to understand Montessori methods fully, but I think it's just that you make a choice when you enroll your kids, that they will be using these methods and techniques.

This. If you’re this annoyed about an abacus you may not be right for Montessori.

Also who sent this email? I never saw anything like this.

And: try looking up how to use an abacus. It’s actually pretty cool.

PP wasn't annoyed about the use of tha abacus, but about the expectation she teach it with no support or guidance

Good lord. It wasn’t an expectation, just a suggestion for a fun math supporting activity for summer alongside things like “read to your child”. A website to learn more was linked.

Some people…

Completely agree with PP directly above. It was an end-of-year email from the principal that (without pressuring parents), listed several ideas for those parents who were looking for "enrichment-type" activities to do over the summer. I actually thought that the suggestion of the abacus was spot on and a really good (cheaper and more easily available) analogue to a Montessori bead board. I also agree that there are reasons for parents to pay attention to both math and reading skills, and to take PARCC scores as one piece of information along with several other pieces of information. But outrage over an email providing several suggestions for summer activities (without any implication that parents are expected to teach these skills) seems like an odd place to put your frustration.

The LAMB defenders are in the house!

There's no 'outrage'. Calm down. A person's mild criticism is that parents are not taught Montessori pedagogy, but there's a suggestion that we should know it. It's ok.

Except there was no suggestion whatsoever of this, so it's complete BS and weird, to be honest.

Shhhh....you are making our school look ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the bead frame is used to teach base ten numbers in montessori. it’s color coded and easy for my 5 year old to understand. she can skip count and now has a good foundation in number sense, not just wrote learning.

That is fine but I do not know how to use a bead frame or an abacus, and we are not using a bead frame at all. I think it is unreasonable to expect parents to be the ones to teach children how to use archaic equipment.

the Montessori method is pretty tactile in general -- I get the point in using the various equipment they use because of their understanding of how kids learn. I don't profess to understand Montessori methods fully, but I think it's just that you make a choice when you enroll your kids, that they will be using these methods and techniques.

This. If you’re this annoyed about an abacus you may not be right for Montessori.

Also who sent this email? I never saw anything like this.

And: try looking up how to use an abacus. It’s actually pretty cool.

PP wasn't annoyed about the use of tha abacus, but about the expectation she teach it with no support or guidance

Good lord. It wasn’t an expectation, just a suggestion for a fun math supporting activity for summer alongside things like “read to your child”. A website to learn more was linked.

Some people…

Completely agree with PP directly above. It was an end-of-year email from the principal that (without pressuring parents), listed several ideas for those parents who were looking for "enrichment-type" activities to do over the summer. I actually thought that the suggestion of the abacus was spot on and a really good (cheaper and more easily available) analogue to a Montessori bead board. I also agree that there are reasons for parents to pay attention to both math and reading skills, and to take PARCC scores as one piece of information along with several other pieces of information. But outrage over an email providing several suggestions for summer activities (without any implication that parents are expected to teach these skills) seems like an odd place to put your frustration.

The LAMB defenders are in the house!

There's no 'outrage'. Calm down. A person's mild criticism is that parents are not taught Montessori pedagogy, but there's a suggestion that we should know it. It's ok.

Except there was no suggestion whatsoever of this, so it's complete BS and weird, to be honest.

Shhhh....you are making our school look ridiculous.

I'm not sure how, but pretty sure it looks ridiculous on every thread where it's mentioned, so.

[Anonymous]

True. I guess we can't get more ridiculous-looking.

Let's continue to get super angry with each other over minor things!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate this concern about PARCC math scores at LAMB. They are not strong. But PARCC is not the be-all and end-all of measuring math skills. I am a LAMB parent and know they use other assessment tools. PARCC is not compatible with Montessori math. But my daughter is entering 8th grade in DCI and was placed a grade ahead in math when she entered the school, as were many of her LAMB classmates. Yes, there are parents that are concerned about it regardless of whether or not we understand that it isn't compatible with PARCC and the administration is also concerned about it and does not brush it aside.

But how did she score on PARCC? Without knowing whether the kids that place ahead scored 4's or 5's, it's no accurate to assume that the low number of kids scoring on grade level are actually at or above grade level, but just not demonstrating that on PARCC.

She scored a 4, and was a few points away from 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate this concern about PARCC math scores at LAMB. They are not strong. But PARCC is not the be-all and end-all of measuring math skills. I am a LAMB parent and know they use other assessment tools. PARCC is not compatible with Montessori math. But my daughter is entering 8th grade in DCI and was placed a grade ahead in math when she entered the school, as were many of her LAMB classmates. Yes, there are parents that are concerned about it regardless of whether or not we understand that it isn't compatible with PARCC and the administration is also concerned about it and does not brush it aside.

But how did she score on PARCC? Without knowing whether the kids that place ahead scored 4's or 5's, it's no accurate to assume that the low number of kids scoring on grade level are actually at or above grade level, but just not demonstrating that on PARCC.

She scored a 4, and was a few points away from 5.

That is helpful, thank you for sharing. I absolutely don't doubt that some kids are able to exceed expectations (in any learning environment, really), but it sounds like her PARCC scores matched her actual skill level closely based on her DCI placement. Which means the 89% of black students and 45% of white students that are below grade level at LAMB according to PARCC may actually be below grade level and not just bad at PARCC because of Montessori fidelity. Obviously you can't draw conclusions from one data point, but it's something I'd be very cognizant of if I were a LAMB parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate this concern about PARCC math scores at LAMB. They are not strong. But PARCC is not the be-all and end-all of measuring math skills. I am a LAMB parent and know they use other assessment tools. PARCC is not compatible with Montessori math. But my daughter is entering 8th grade in DCI and was placed a grade ahead in math when she entered the school, as were many of her LAMB classmates. Yes, there are parents that are concerned about it regardless of whether or not we understand that it isn't compatible with PARCC and the administration is also concerned about it and does not brush it aside.

But how did she score on PARCC? Without knowing whether the kids that place ahead scored 4's or 5's, it's no accurate to assume that the low number of kids scoring on grade level are actually at or above grade level, but just not demonstrating that on PARCC.

She scored a 4, and was a few points away from 5.

That is helpful, thank you for sharing. I absolutely don't doubt that some kids are able to exceed expectations (in any learning environment, really), but it sounds like her PARCC scores matched her actual skill level closely based on her DCI placement. Which means the 89% of black students and 45% of white students that are below grade level at LAMB according to PARCC may actually be below grade level and not just bad at PARCC because of Montessori fidelity. Obviously you can't draw conclusions from one data point, but it's something I'd be very cognizant of if I were a LAMB parent.

I personally am cognizant of it, and therefore supplement a bunch in math. But kid likes math so this is no great feat on my part. We mostly just do games and apps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the bead frame is used to teach base ten numbers in montessori. it’s color coded and easy for my 5 year old to understand. she can skip count and now has a good foundation in number sense, not just wrote learning.

That is fine but I do not know how to use a bead frame or an abacus, and we are not using a bead frame at all. I think it is unreasonable to expect parents to be the ones to teach children how to use archaic equipment.

our child is at Breakthrough. they sent home the bead frame and we made some. the guide taught her and I played games with her using them. you shouldn’t be teaching your child either. I agree.

[Anonymous]

Is this where we talk about if they will have elementary materials available at SD campus this year for our older primary kids to transition into?

[Anonymous]

Are there really just no schools for EOTP kids that don't require supplementation for the basics? Is this a EOTP issue? DC issue? US public schools issue? If LAMB doesn't do the basics well enough, is there just nowhere that does?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate this concern about PARCC math scores at LAMB. They are not strong. But PARCC is not the be-all and end-all of measuring math skills. I am a LAMB parent and know they use other assessment tools. PARCC is not compatible with Montessori math. But my daughter is entering 8th grade in DCI and was placed a grade ahead in math when she entered the school, as were many of her LAMB classmates. Yes, there are parents that are concerned about it regardless of whether or not we understand that it isn't compatible with PARCC and the administration is also concerned about it and does not brush it aside.

But how did she score on PARCC? Without knowing whether the kids that place ahead scored 4's or 5's, it's no accurate to assume that the low number of kids scoring on grade level are actually at or above grade level, but just not demonstrating that on PARCC.

She scored a 4, and was a few points away from 5.

That is helpful, thank you for sharing. I absolutely don't doubt that some kids are able to exceed expectations (in any learning environment, really), but it sounds like her PARCC scores matched her actual skill level closely based on her DCI placement. Which means the 89% of black students and 45% of white students that are below grade level at LAMB according to PARCC may actually be below grade level and not just bad at PARCC because of Montessori fidelity. Obviously you can't draw conclusions from one data point, but it's something I'd be very cognizant of if I were a LAMB parent.

I agree, very helpful. Makes me really glad that there has been some assessments done this last year since I feel like I wouldn’t have a good feel for where things stand otherwise w/r/t my child and math abilities. Maybe in recognition of the math scores, LAMB camp this summer is doing daily math interventions for the kids. I’m glad for that and we continue to do our own work at home as well. I’m honestly very worried about my child and where they are currently at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there really just no schools for EOTP kids that don't require supplementation for the basics? Is this a EOTP issue? DC issue? US public schools issue? If LAMB doesn't do the basics well enough, is there just nowhere that does?

I don't think many schools actually require supplementation, it depends on parental expectations. Some parents naturally will do so. We might ourselves just to be sure, mainly due to the lost year of learning, not LAMB falling short necessarily.

It truly would only be parents of upper elementary, or graduates, who could tell what's what at any given school, including LAMB. I would like to hear from some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there really just no schools for EOTP kids that don't require supplementation for the basics? Is this a EOTP issue? DC issue? US public schools issue? If LAMB doesn't do the basics well enough, is there just nowhere that does?

I don't think many schools actually require supplementation, it depends on parental expectations. Some parents naturally will do so. We might ourselves just to be sure, mainly due to the lost year of learning, not LAMB falling short necessarily.

It truly would only be parents of upper elementary, or graduates, who could tell what's what at any given school, including LAMB. I would like to hear from some.

I don't know, I think if your school isn't getting kids to grade level in your demographic cohort (understanding that the needs of different students vary drastically in an urban area and you're in a cohort that you could reasonably expect to be on grade level for most kids, i.e., MC, non at-risk kids), then you really should be supplementing because grade level is where your "average" kid SHOULD be. Just because everyone else is at a similar level to you doesn't mean it's the right level, it just means that's where the bar has been set. I'm generalizing, but the fact that you can drop the same cohort of kids into different schools and get different results means the difference is the school and the kids can be doing better.

[Anonymous]

The then LAMB administration were open when we enrolled that the LAMB's maths testing was relatively low. The statement then was that it reflected the pedagogy.

In speaking with parents of kids who are now in middle school, they report that LAMB kids are behind other middle schoolers in maths.

As to supplementation, I don't remember the abicus email but our teacher told us to practice our child's multiplication tables.

[Anonymous]

My kid is in 2nd grade so obviously no PARCC yet but I have loved the way Montessori teaches math- it is so much more logical and practical than the old school way. She understands multiplication, division, fractions and geometry in a much more basic way- like truly understands what they mean. I feel like when I was a kid I just memorized things without actually understanding them.