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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here who is a LAMB parent.

I see the value in admitting Kindergarteners. However, I do think that admitting Kindergartners would negatively affect how well the Primary classrooms run. The Kindergarteners who have spent two years at LAMB are expected to show leadership in the primary classroom by helping the younger children. In my child's class, Ks are paired with 3 year olds and the start of the school year and the Kindergartners become the PreK3 kids special helpers and assistants in the classroom. (This is super sweet and was lovely for my child). Also, Kindergarteners are the best at following the norms of the Montessori classroom, partially because they have been there the longest and partially because they are older. If you have a bunch of new Ks coming in with new PreK3s and 4s coming in, you will have fewer kids that can support the teachers and more kids that need to be trained in the norms of the classroom and may be creating behavioral problems. I very much doubt that the classrooms would run as well. (Also add to this the fact that most of the new Kindergarteners won't understand what the teacher is saying in Spanish......).

For the above reasons, I sincerely hope that my PK4 student gets out of the primary classroom before any change to admit Kindergarteners would be made.

Please note that the above is not LAMB's fault, this is how Montessori works. It is very different from IB, language immersion, or all of the other comparisons that are being made here. You are comparing apples with oranges -- doesn't make any sense to make those comparison.

Certainly, a curriculum can establish any norms that it wants, but if a curriculum is too inflexible to meet the requirements of a public school, perhaps it should only be used in a private school setting.

Oh please. Why is it so bad to have a private type setting paid for by public funding? Why do you hate high SES people? If we didn't have that, we would take our tax dollars elsewhere. It works for my child, so why should I care about the system as a whole?

note:sarcasm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lee and Shining Stars admit in K and beyond. Seems like they do just fine with it. As PPs said, if LAMB can't admit past PK4, it says a lot about the school.

They do "just fine", but ask any Montessori teacher or administrator and they will all tell you that admitting at k or behind is not ideal and is detrimental to the Montessori model if there are more than a couple of new students in each class (and also difficult even if just one child). There is a reason why neither school has any open k spots this year. They avoid back filling as much as possible too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lee and Shining Stars admit in K and beyond. Seems like they do just fine with it. As PPs said, if LAMB can't admit past PK4, it says a lot about the school.

They do "just fine", but ask any Montessori teacher or administrator and they will all tell you that admitting at k or behind is not ideal and is detrimental to the Montessori model if there are more than a couple of new students in each class (and also difficult even if just one child). There is a reason why neither school has any open k spots this year. They avoid back filling as much as possible too.

There are a lot of things about public education that are not ideal. As much as some posters would like to think otherwise, LAMB is not a private school.

[Anonymous]

Immersion into Montessori? What a crock. If they were allowed to give a Spanish language test appropriate to the grade as a requirement of entering the lottery for upper grades there is no reason they couldn't offer spots in the upper grades. LAMB's superiority complex has addled their brains.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Immersion into Montessori? What a crock. If they were allowed to give a Spanish language test appropriate to the grade as a requirement of entering the lottery for upper grades there is no reason they couldn't offer spots in the upper grades. LAMB's superiority complex has addled their brains.

The principal basically said the same thing at the meeting -- but they are NOT allowed to give a Spanish test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here who is a LAMB parent.

I see the value in admitting Kindergarteners. However, I do think that admitting Kindergartners would negatively affect how well the Primary classrooms run. The Kindergarteners who have spent two years at LAMB are expected to show leadership in the primary classroom by helping the younger children. In my child's class, Ks are paired with 3 year olds and the start of the school year and the Kindergartners become the PreK3 kids special helpers and assistants in the classroom. (This is super sweet and was lovely for my child). Also, Kindergarteners are the best at following the norms of the Montessori classroom, partially because they have been there the longest and partially because they are older. If you have a bunch of new Ks coming in with new PreK3s and 4s coming in, you will have fewer kids that can support the teachers and more kids that need to be trained in the norms of the classroom and may be creating behavioral problems. I very much doubt that the classrooms would run as well. (Also add to this the fact that most of the new Kindergarteners won't understand what the teacher is saying in Spanish......).

For the above reasons, I sincerely hope that my PK4 student gets out of the primary classroom before any change to admit Kindergarteners would be made.

Please note that the above is not LAMB's fault, this is how Montessori works. It is very different from IB, language immersion, or all of the other comparisons that are being made here. You are comparing apples with oranges -- doesn't make any sense to make those comparison.

Certainly, a curriculum can establish any norms that it wants, but if a curriculum is too inflexible to meet the requirements of a public school, perhaps it should only be used in a private school setting.

Oh please. Why is it so bad to have a private type setting paid for by public funding? Why do you hate high SES people? If we didn't have that, we would take our tax dollars elsewhere. It works for my child, so why should I care about the system as a whole?

note:sarcasm

So you always put the interests of others before that of your child? I somehow doubt that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here who is a LAMB parent.

I see the value in admitting Kindergarteners. However, I do think that admitting Kindergartners would negatively affect how well the Primary classrooms run. The Kindergarteners who have spent two years at LAMB are expected to show leadership in the primary classroom by helping the younger children. In my child's class, Ks are paired with 3 year olds and the start of the school year and the Kindergartners become the PreK3 kids special helpers and assistants in the classroom. (This is super sweet and was lovely for my child). Also, Kindergarteners are the best at following the norms of the Montessori classroom, partially because they have been there the longest and partially because they are older. If you have a bunch of new Ks coming in with new PreK3s and 4s coming in, you will have fewer kids that can support the teachers and more kids that need to be trained in the norms of the classroom and may be creating behavioral problems. I very much doubt that the classrooms would run as well. (Also add to this the fact that most of the new Kindergarteners won't understand what the teacher is saying in Spanish......).

For the above reasons, I sincerely hope that my PK4 student gets out of the primary classroom before any change to admit Kindergarteners would be made.

Please note that the above is not LAMB's fault, this is how Montessori works. It is very different from IB, language immersion, or all of the other comparisons that are being made here. You are comparing apples with oranges -- doesn't make any sense to make those comparison.

Certainly, a curriculum can establish any norms that it wants, but if a curriculum is too inflexible to meet the requirements of a public school, perhaps it should only be used in a private school setting.

Oh please. Why is it so bad to have a private type setting paid for by public funding? Why do you hate high SES people? If we didn't have that, we would take our tax dollars elsewhere. It works for my child, so why should I care about the system as a whole?

note:sarcasm

So you always put the interests of others before that of your child? I somehow doubt that.

Public policy should put the interests of the public before the interests of individuals. Individuals choose what's best for their children.

We're talking about what policy should / shouldn't be.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Look, it probably outs me to even admit this; but I don't give a toss.

My child's upper grade Montessori class had more than half of the kids in it coming from non-Montessori backgrounds. And they all had a fantastic year. Sure, there was a learning curve, but it wasn't insane. Montessori is not that complicated.

And no, these were not all high ses, "privileged" kids.

[Anonymous]

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.

This is true but DCPS schools only accept children with prior Montessori experience. That's the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, it probably outs me to even admit this; but I don't give a toss.

My child's upper grade Montessori class had more than half of the kids in it coming from non-Montessori backgrounds. And they all had a fantastic year. Sure, there was a learning curve, but it wasn't insane. Montessori is not that complicated.

And no, these were not all high ses, "privileged" kids.

"upper grade" what are you talking about? An upper elementary class? Or a lower elementary class? It's great that they had a good year, but if more than half of the kids started this year with no Montessori background that's not a real Montessori classroom. It can't be. It doesn't mean it didn't work. But it's not a full Montessori experience, because the kids don't have the background necessary. At best it was some type of hybrid. Did the teacher incorporate some type of incentives for the kids who had not yet developed internal motivation?

[Anonymous]

^^as if LAMB offers "a full Montessori experience." It is definitely Montessori-light, according to the parents I know there. (And they like it that way, but don't pretend it's authentic.)