Lee Montessori for Black Children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bump - still waiting to hear what Lee’s response has been and what they Have planned to address this mess.

What's the "mess"? Lee is judged according to its PMF score. Even IF it completely under serves black children or special ed children or any particular group, it will do fine on the PMF because those children are not a large part of its student body. Lee was approved to expand even though its PARCC scores are below average for all kids. Parents value Montessori programs and it may be that test scores for Lee aren't truly reflective of what students know and can do.

Do you think the way they calculate the PMF score will change after the embarrassment of several Tier 1 charters getting low 3 stars?

The PMF is revised periodically anyway. I expect it will change to place more empahsis on performance of at-risk kids. It's embarrassing to the whole sector that at-risk kids at supposedly Tier 1 schools are not performing better. See the data presented by TenSquare at a recent meeting.

Tier 3 schools tend to lose their high-income parents, especially if they get wind of a possible shutdown, so they are unlikely to still be a high-income school by the time their review year rolls around.

Which tier 3 schools are/were high income?

I can only think of Breakthrough but I'm not an expert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bump - still waiting to hear what Lee’s response has been and what they Have planned to address this mess.

What's the "mess"? Lee is judged according to its PMF score. Even IF it completely under serves black children or special ed children or any particular group, it will do fine on the PMF because those children are not a large part of its student body. Lee was approved to expand even though its PARCC scores are below average for all kids. Parents value Montessori programs and it may be that test scores for Lee aren't truly reflective of what students know and can do.

Do you think the way they calculate the PMF score will change after the embarrassment of several Tier 1 charters getting low 3 stars?

The PMF is revised periodically anyway. I expect it will change to place more empahsis on performance of at-risk kids. It's embarrassing to the whole sector that at-risk kids at supposedly Tier 1 schools are not performing better. See the data presented by TenSquare at a recent meeting.

Tier 3 schools tend to lose their high-income parents, especially if they get wind of a possible shutdown, so they are unlikely to still be a high-income school by the time their review year rolls around.

Which tier 3 schools are/were high income?

I can only think of Breakthrough but I'm not an expert.

The churn of low-performing charters opening and closing is not something high-income people will tolerate. Only low-income families are expected to put up with being experimented upon. I am aghast at the recent charter failures (Monument, Sustainable Futures for example) and also at the dubious and shaky new starts that have been authorized. Enough already.

[Anonymous]

And then there are several stable charters in the city that have consistently delivered strong results for 10+ years but are pooh-pooh'd by liberal gentrifiers because those schools lack a trendy educational gimmick and have "less desirable" demographics. It seems that the education of the actual child is secondary to parents' networking and socializing via listservs, playdates, events. The poor test results of black children at Lee is very unfortunate and I hope all Lee parents are called to action to make improvements and/or fully explore other school options in the area that may be better suited to the individual child's needs/learning style.

[Anonymous]

I have an idea about this. Montessori, especially when strictly applied, cares little about testing. But, surely the kids are learning math and reading. I wonder if white children are more likely to be picking up these skills outside of school even if not taught during school....If I were at Lee I would be more concerned about my individual child and the progress measured by their teachers, which may simply fit less well into Parcc. But I would also think hard about whether my child needs to learn testing for later success academically. I think posters on here aren’t fully aware of how different this educational model really is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have an idea about this. Montessori, especially when strictly applied, cares little about testing. But, surely the kids are learning math and reading. I wonder if white children are more likely to be picking up these skills outside of school even if not taught during school....If I were at Lee I would be more concerned about my individual child and the progress measured by their teachers, which may simply fit less well into Parcc. But I would also think hard about whether my child needs to learn testing for later success academically. I think posters on here aren’t fully aware of how different this educational model really is.

From my perspective and experience at a different Montessori school in DC, it depends whether the main educational goals are to enjoy learning at an individual pace for each kid (and yes, this often includes learning reading, math, geography, and other subjects at or above grade level) and set kids up for a lifetime of intellectual curiosity and valuable life and community skills with practical life applications vs. teaching students how to score well on tests and over focusing on test scores as the primary indicator of academic learning and success, at the potential expense of their genuine, long-term educational enjoyment. If the concern is getting into college without high test scores (which is not necessarily the case in higher grades), there are several excellent, well-rounded universities and programs within them that don't pay much attention to test scores because they realize there are many other important factors that contribute to a student's academics, experience, character, thirst for learning, and potential. Obviously, these are general thoughts and observations that don't apply to every kid, school, and situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bump - still waiting to hear what Lee’s response has been and what they Have planned to address this mess.

What's the "mess"? Lee is judged according to its PMF score. Even IF it completely under serves black children or special ed children or any particular group, it will do fine on the PMF because those children are not a large part of its student body. Lee was approved to expand even though its PARCC scores are below average for all kids. Parents value Montessori programs and it may be that test scores for Lee aren't truly reflective of what students know and can do.

Do you think the way they calculate the PMF score will change after the embarrassment of several Tier 1 charters getting low 3 stars?

The PMF is revised periodically anyway. I expect it will change to place more empahsis on performance of at-risk kids. It's embarrassing to the whole sector that at-risk kids at supposedly Tier 1 schools are not performing better. See the data presented by TenSquare at a recent meeting.

Tier 3 schools tend to lose their high-income parents, especially if they get wind of a possible shutdown, so they are unlikely to still be a high-income school by the time their review year rolls around.

Which tier 3 schools are/were high income?

I can only think of Breakthrough but I'm not an expert.

The churn of low-performing charters opening and closing is not something high-income people will tolerate. Only low-income families are expected to put up with being experimented upon. I am aghast at the recent charter failures (Monument, Sustainable Futures for example) and also at the dubious and shaky new starts that have been authorized. Enough already.

Monument was founded for children in foster care and homeless children. Sustainable Futures for dropouts with a focus on high at-risk, unemployed and homeless. The reality is that high income families are not seeking these kinds of schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bump - still waiting to hear what Lee’s response has been and what they Have planned to address this mess.

What's the "mess"? Lee is judged according to its PMF score. Even IF it completely under serves black children or special ed children or any particular group, it will do fine on the PMF because those children are not a large part of its student body. Lee was approved to expand even though its PARCC scores are below average for all kids. Parents value Montessori programs and it may be that test scores for Lee aren't truly reflective of what students know and can do.

Do you think the way they calculate the PMF score will change after the embarrassment of several Tier 1 charters getting low 3 stars?

The PMF is revised periodically anyway. I expect it will change to place more empahsis on performance of at-risk kids. It's embarrassing to the whole sector that at-risk kids at supposedly Tier 1 schools are not performing better. See the data presented by TenSquare at a recent meeting.

Tier 3 schools tend to lose their high-income parents, especially if they get wind of a possible shutdown, so they are unlikely to still be a high-income school by the time their review year rolls around.

Which tier 3 schools are/were high income?

I can only think of Breakthrough but I'm not an expert.

The churn of low-performing charters opening and closing is not something high-income people will tolerate. Only low-income families are expected to put up with being experimented upon. I am aghast at the recent charter failures (Monument, Sustainable Futures for example) and also at the dubious and shaky new starts that have been authorized. Enough already.

Monument was founded for children in foster care and homeless children. Sustainable Futures for dropouts with a focus on high at-risk, unemployed and homeless. The reality is that high income families are not seeking these kinds of schools.

That's not the point. The point is that vulnerable children and struggling young adults were treated very poorly by badly mismanaged charter schools. So badly that both voluntarily closed because they knew their problems were insurmountable. People WOTP wouldn't tolerate that kind of mismanagement for their children. The DCPSCB is willing to entrust vulnerable children to incompetent, under-prepared rookie leaders who have no idea what they're doing. They wouldn't treat high-SES children so badly. This kind of experimentation, upheaval, and failure is reserved for the poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bump - still waiting to hear what Lee’s response has been and what they Have planned to address this mess.

What's the "mess"? Lee is judged according to its PMF score. Even IF it completely under serves black children or special ed children or any particular group, it will do fine on the PMF because those children are not a large part of its student body. Lee was approved to expand even though its PARCC scores are below average for all kids. Parents value Montessori programs and it may be that test scores for Lee aren't truly reflective of what students know and can do.

Do you think the way they calculate the PMF score will change after the embarrassment of several Tier 1 charters getting low 3 stars?

The PMF is revised periodically anyway. I expect it will change to place more empahsis on performance of at-risk kids. It's embarrassing to the whole sector that at-risk kids at supposedly Tier 1 schools are not performing better. See the data presented by TenSquare at a recent meeting.

Tier 3 schools tend to lose their high-income parents, especially if they get wind of a possible shutdown, so they are unlikely to still be a high-income school by the time their review year rolls around.

Which tier 3 schools are/were high income?

I can only think of Breakthrough but I'm not an expert.

The churn of low-performing charters opening and closing is not something high-income people will tolerate. Only low-income families are expected to put up with being experimented upon. I am aghast at the recent charter failures (Monument, Sustainable Futures for example) and also at the dubious and shaky new starts that have been authorized. Enough already.

Monument was founded for children in foster care and homeless children. Sustainable Futures for dropouts with a focus on high at-risk, unemployed and homeless. The reality is that high income families are not seeking these kinds of schools.

That's not the point. The point is that vulnerable children and struggling young adults were treated very poorly by badly mismanaged charter schools. So badly that both voluntarily closed because they knew their problems were insurmountable. People WOTP wouldn't tolerate that kind of mismanagement for their children. The DCPSCB is willing to entrust vulnerable children to incompetent, under-prepared rookie leaders who have no idea what they're doing. They wouldn't treat high-SES children so badly. This kind of experimentation, upheaval, and failure is reserved for the poor.

It’s not they wouldn’t, but even with this “choice” system the wealthier, as always, have a lot more choices. They won’t put up with these schools and just don’t go. If you think you’re being squeezed into few poor options thanks to a bad lottery draw, think about how it feels to be truly unable to commute far or move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bump - still waiting to hear what Lee’s response has been and what they Have planned to address this mess.

What's the "mess"? Lee is judged according to its PMF score. Even IF it completely under serves black children or special ed children or any particular group, it will do fine on the PMF because those children are not a large part of its student body. Lee was approved to expand even though its PARCC scores are below average for all kids. Parents value Montessori programs and it may be that test scores for Lee aren't truly reflective of what students know and can do.

Do you think the way they calculate the PMF score will change after the embarrassment of several Tier 1 charters getting low 3 stars?

The PMF is revised periodically anyway. I expect it will change to place more empahsis on performance of at-risk kids. It's embarrassing to the whole sector that at-risk kids at supposedly Tier 1 schools are not performing better. See the data presented by TenSquare at a recent meeting.

Tier 3 schools tend to lose their high-income parents, especially if they get wind of a possible shutdown, so they are unlikely to still be a high-income school by the time their review year rolls around.

Which tier 3 schools are/were high income?

I can only think of Breakthrough but I'm not an expert.

The churn of low-performing charters opening and closing is not something high-income people will tolerate. Only low-income families are expected to put up with being experimented upon. I am aghast at the recent charter failures (Monument, Sustainable Futures for example) and also at the dubious and shaky new starts that have been authorized. Enough already.

Monument was founded for children in foster care and homeless children. Sustainable Futures for dropouts with a focus on high at-risk, unemployed and homeless. The reality is that high income families are not seeking these kinds of schools.

That's not the point. The point is that vulnerable children and struggling young adults were treated very poorly by badly mismanaged charter schools. So badly that both voluntarily closed because they knew their problems were insurmountable. People WOTP wouldn't tolerate that kind of mismanagement for their children. The DCPSCB is willing to entrust vulnerable children to incompetent, under-prepared rookie leaders who have no idea what they're doing. They wouldn't treat high-SES children so badly. This kind of experimentation, upheaval, and failure is reserved for the poor.

Those poor children and families were treated poorly by the existing system. That's why Sustainable students were at Sustainable because there was no place else for them and when they were someplace else, they weren't served well. The overall results of more affluent schools hide what is happening with the poor and struggling students in those schools. The schools may be considered "well-managed" but if your child is homeless or particularly troubled, they are not. I agree with you that the DCPCSB needs to better vet people who would start charters and do much greater monitoring in the first five years (or longer) but I also believe that the DCPCSB needs to examine what is happening with vulnerable students across all charter schools - including the ones that are considered well-managed and high performing. You are also correct that high SES families don't experience the churn, upheaval and failure of their schools - even if they are badly mismanaged (LAMB) - and certainly not if they are only badly managed as evidenced by results for the at-risk/minority kids (Lee Montessori).

Think about it -- the at-risk results at some of the so-called "highest performing" charters are lower than the results of charters that have been closed. So while you may be right that the DCPCSB is willing to entrust vulnerable children to rookies, the DCPCSB is also willing to entrust vulnerable children to supposedly competent people who are doing little to nothing for vulnerable children so long as the schools are primarily serving the affluent.

[Anonymous]

Any Lee Montessori Black parents willing to share their experience at this point in November? Im curious?

[Anonymous]

Honestly you have to be careful sending your black children to any public school. I have a child at an immersion school and it’s ok but some of the white parents can be weird acting. The conversations my wife and I hear are sometimes hilarious at best. Be careful, make sure that there is black representation in the school in leading roles. White parents can come off as talking to you if you’re poor just bc you’re black, which is once again hilarious to my wife and I. We’re the youngest parents in my child’s class so maybe it’s a generational thing. I will say other than the weird white parents who think if you’re not white you’re poor it’s cool. Just make sure you’re really involved in what is going on at the school and in the classrooms just in case you have “check” someone.


Peace!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly you have to be careful sending your black children to any public school. I have a child at an immersion school and it’s ok but some of the white parents can be weird acting. The conversations my wife and I hear are sometimes hilarious at best. Be careful, make sure that there is black representation in the school in leading roles. White parents can come off as talking to you as if you’re poor just bc you’re black, which is once again hilarious to my wife and I. We’re the youngest parents in my child’s class so maybe it’s a generational thing. I will say other than the weird white parents who think if you’re not white you’re poor it’s cool. Just make sure you’re really involved in what is going on at the school and in the classrooms just in case you have to “check” someone.


Peace!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly you have to be careful sending your black children to any public school. I have a child at an immersion school and it’s ok but some of the white parents can be weird acting. The conversations my wife and I hear are sometimes hilarious at best. Be careful, make sure that there is black representation in the school in leading roles. White parents can come off as talking to you if you’re poor just bc you’re black, which is once again hilarious to my wife and I. We’re the youngest parents in my child’s class so maybe it’s a generational thing. I will say other than the weird white parents who think if you’re not white you’re poor it’s cool. Just make sure you’re really involved in what is going on at the school and in the classrooms just in case you have “check” someone.


Peace!

You're crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the school doesn't do any test prep at all, that's a problem. At least teach kids how to type and how to use a computer, or assign typing homework that can be done at home. You don't need to teach to the test, but if kids can't even operate the test program, you're going to get low scores.

Not all families have computers at home! If it is part of the schools testing (and life in general) the School needs to teach them!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to put their money where their mouth is an hire African American Latinx etc lead teachers and administrators and a Cultural Competency person.
They need to learn how to reach kids of all colors and SES levels. No matter the color kids that have possible come from a very structured school or lack of free choice and self motivated learning situation will need extra help to adjust.

They have at least two African American leads on the Brookland campus, as well as a newly hired Director of Equity who I think came from LAMB?

Two out of how many leads in the classroom? 7 or 8?

I wonder if part of the challenge is finding a diverse pool of Montessori-trained educators. This could be a situation where a teaching fellows program like what IT and Appletree have would be useful.

Bingo!
You want diverse, trained and amazing educators no? A lot of POCs who would theoretically have the chops go straight into other fields. A school based program that lured them in and trained them (hopefully for free)is smart. You all know how low paid teaching starting salaries are ... you have to up the offer to find these amazing diverse teachers. Btw, everyone else is competing for them as well .
.

DCPS /DCPCS in general is horrible about this. They need to have high school programs that can connect to Community/College and Trade Programs. DC has a huge travel & tourism, housing, bus/metro tech, security, medical, education, plumber/electrical/ welding, government jobs... the list goes on. DC could set up training programs for students to have certifications and experience before graduation. There are still some very successful tech/trade school programs all over the country. Even those with college focus could gain real life skills that will help them pay there way or start their own business after. Obviously most of these are out side the scope of this thread. But they could have ECE, dedicated aides, coaches, before & aftercare, assistance teachers, office workers, computer techs, building maintenance all home educated and home grown. Instead of school to prison pipeline DC could start a huge the school to city employee pipeline.