LAMB Enrollment Increase

[Anonymous]

I am also wondering if it might be possible for us all to cultivate conversations about Montessori schools without bashing other Montessori schools. Because as someone late to the fold, I like the classrooms, but hate the way the parents sound like packs of crazed cultists or indy rock critics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In theory, I always thought immersion schools sounded nice. Who doesn't want their child to learn another language?

However, from watching my friends pull out of them one by one in upper grades, I have to conclude there can be issues. There are only so many hours in a day. Something has to give. Finding and retaining good staff becomes additionally challenging.

The other, more insidious thing that an immersion school does is cherry pick. If you can't add students you lose from attrition, you end up with your most dedicated and proficient students as the others fall by the wayside.

Is this bad? I suppose not, if the system gets extra help for students who need it. However, from what I've heard from parents who have left o-a, Stokes, MVthat doesn't always happen. Which is why they leave.

As I said, our Montessori is accredited (I don't know if it's ami or AMS and I can't remember the difference and I don't care) and does a good job of working with kids at a variety of levels. It also accepts into elementary. I agree with a language requirements doing that would be hard. But I'm wondering, does the Montessori aspect of lamb help them reach a wide variety of learning levels? Do they have less counsel outs than the pure language schools?

What are you asking? LAMB does an excellent job with all children. I don't have experience with any other school as we were accepted into LAMB and did not look at anything else. Congratulations on your accreditation, LAMB is also accredited, but not with AMI. I do not believe there are records that are publicly available on "counsel-outs".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am also wondering if it might be possible for us all to cultivate conversations about Montessori schools without bashing other Montessori schools. Because as someone late to the fold, I like the classrooms, but hate the way the parents sound like packs of crazed cultists or indy rock critics.

Then maybe you shouldn't have mentioned your Montessori schools accreditation twice in your posts.

[Anonymous]

Then maybe you shouldn't have mentioned your Montessori schools accreditation twice in your posts.

Well, I only did so because some of your crazed cultists and indy rock critics questioned it.

Which I guess means the answer to my other question is... no.

Let the Montessori edition of the Hunger Games commence! May the odds ever be in my favor! And screw you.

[Anonymous]

What are you asking? LAMB does an excellent job with all children. I don't have experience with any other school as we were accepted into LAMB and did not look at anything else. Congratulations on your accreditation, LAMB is also accredited, but not with AMI. I do not believe there are records that are publicly available on "counsel-outs".

I'm asking if you think Lamb does a good job with differentiated learning. Which I meant to be obvious from my post. If it wasn't--apologies. Was typing on my phone.

Apparently, your takeaway from my post was ".... ACCREDIDATION, LAMB IS TOO, OMG. Squirrel!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will definitely be filing a comment recommending that they not be allowed to expand unless they open their school to grades beyond PK-4. Even if it's only to those with previous montessori experience. It's insane that they are the only school that doesn't do this. Anyone else who feels this way should too. While there will be retention, there is also attrition and those seats remain open (even though there are families and children interested).

What a sour grades point-of-view! I'm hoping you're not a current parent. You sound like a gem...NOT! LAMB is a fantastic school looking to serve children in the District with a stellar program. As Montessori, it is alike all others in not permitting admission beyond Pre-K 4 (I understand they've *thought* about extending to K for last admission). Someone compared this to Jedi night training in another thread a long time ago, which I remember. You have to start the kid early before the anger sets in. The style of learning needs it's roots to be laid early. Older children cannot adapt. Not to mention the added layer of bilingual. With respect to granting admission to kids with prior Montessori, LAMB IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO THIS! Charter law prevents it. So, instead of trying to put a monkey wrench into their expansion efforts, but don't you lobby the Charter Board to change this. Including having a provision to allow kids with prior language experience to enter immersion schools at higher grades. MV and YY would love to give priority admission to native Spanish and Mandarin speakers, etc..., but they've been disallowed due to short-sighted rules. Why don't you do something positive and steer your energy to changing that?

LOL... I am a gem, actually. Hey I did all the hard work for you (Logan Montessori below)
Children are accepted at 3 years of age for the Primary Program (ages 3–6). Depending on space availability, transfer students are accepted for all grades from Pre-school through Grade 7 (and 8 grade beginning in school year 2015-2016), if the child transferring is from an accredited Association of Montessori Internationale school or program.

NP. OMG, you're so stupid. Logan is a DC public school, operating under more permissive rules denied to charter schools. Talk about being loud and wrong! So glad you're not at LAMB!

JEEZ. New poster here, but it seems the only nasty/crazy one is the LAMB one. Seek help for yourself



JEE

Agree. And she's wrong too. Other Montessori schools take kids past PK4, without Montessori experience including Lee and SSMA.

I'm the PP LAMB alum parent (who I hope isn't being lumped in with the other LAMB parent).

FWIW LAMB has argued in the past that the combination of Spanish immersion + Montessori makes it very difficult for an older child to catch up to. Perhaps either catching up on Spanish or Montessori is possible but not both.

I"m not sure that argument has ever been tested and think it's untenable for them to get 'special treatment' much longer. They could try it and if it is a disaster then appeal for a return to their current charter language. But who would want their kid to be that guinea pig? I wouldn't.

NP here.

YY's charter finalizes its entry year at 2nd grade, and everyone seems to understand why that makes sense. For those who don't: If you enter YY at 2nd grade with no Mandarin, you simply won't be able to catch up. The class a student would be entering would have had two full years of immersion (PS3 & PK4) and then two years of 1/2 English & 1/2 Mandarin (K & 1st). It's unfair to a child to bring them into an environment where they're going to be so far behind their classmates - the psychological repercussions would probably be even more severe than the academic ones of losing half a year of instruction (presumably they'd continue to learn in English, but be utterly lost in Chinese). FWIW, this is rarely of issue, because the retention rate is so high that there are rarely any open seats anyway. YY's entry classes are almost completely filled with siblings.

This is relevant, because a school's curriculum is part of its charter. When outsiders start demanding changes to the charter, they are unlikely to understand the repercussions to the curriculum and how their good faith attempts to make change can undermine the good work inside the school. I'm using the YY example because some people might find it easier to understand what a challenge a language like Chinese introduces.

LAMB's situation is in fact similarly specialized. Not only are they teaching the Montessori method, they're also immersing the students in another language. It's easy to demand from the outside that they revamp their charter and curriculum to suit someone's angry whims. It's a lot more to try to understand the ramifications in the classroom and to the educations of several hundred other students in the program.

I suspect you can complain to the PCSB and vent your spleen on DCUM, but at the end of the day, nobody is interested in trying to "fix" a school like LAMB, which clearly is not broken in the first place.

Just to clarify, if I entered my child in 2nd grade, they would not have had 2 full years of Chinese (as the current class did not have PS3).

Although, I agree with you in theory - your facts are not correct.

Nitpicky but correct. I think this year's kindergarteners were the last class not to have PK3. PP's point is still valid.

Yes, don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love the magical thinking that happens when you mention immersion schools. People really think it's a good idea to dump their older kids in an immersion setting. I personally think it can't be a good idea to set your kid up for failure.

This. I wouldn't enroll my child in an immersion setting where he/she would be years behind everyone else in the class. How damaging is that? Michelle Rhee did that with her children at Oyster and regretted it. She pulled the older one out because it was too stressful to always be the slowest one in the classroom. Who deliberately sets their child up for failure when there are other choices?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clearly no one has bothered to do so.

And it's short too. Simple and basic, like those posting here...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the magical thinking that happens when you mention immersion schools. People really think it's a good idea to dump their older kids in an immersion setting. I personally think it can't be a good idea to set your kid up for failure.

This. I wouldn't enroll my child in an immersion setting where he/she would be years behind everyone else in the class. How damaging is that? Michelle Rhee did that with her children at Oyster and regretted it. She pulled the older one out because it was too stressful to always be the slowest one in the classroom. Who deliberately sets their child up for failure when there are other choices?

Best not to judge people's motives and decisions. Some are already fluent. Public schools should educate all children, period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I doubt that poster is a lamb parent mostly because this information has been known to lamb parents for weeks now and has been discussed to death. Most of us are over the topic and have either submitted a letter supporting the expansion, or have opted not to support it. Best of luck to you on the lottery if LAMB is hat you're looking for.

What is the reason some LAMB parents are not supporting the expansion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the magical thinking that happens when you mention immersion schools. People really think it's a good idea to dump their older kids in an immersion setting. I personally think it can't be a good idea to set your kid up for failure.

This. I wouldn't enroll my child in an immersion setting where he/she would be years behind everyone else in the class. How damaging is that? Michelle Rhee did that with her children at Oyster and regretted it. She pulled the older one out because it was too stressful to always be the slowest one in the classroom. Who deliberately sets their child up for failure when there are other choices?

Best not to judge people's motives and decisions. Some are already fluent. Public schools should educate all children, period.

And we are back to the magical thinking... That you can just dump your kid in oyster or lamb or yu ying and they will magically be able to speak and participate and won't be left behind at all.

[Anonymous]

It is not magical thinking if they can pass a language test!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is not magical thinking if they can pass a language test!

Which many (like myself) would support. But the charter board does not allow charter schools to do this. Lamb would be thrilled to get an influx of fresh Spanish speaking children (I assume?), but they're not legally allowed to do this. Oyster, because it is a dcps (that's a DC public school), can since it's not a charter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not magical thinking if they can pass a language test!

Which many (like myself) would support. But the charter board does not allow charter schools to do this. Lamb would be thrilled to get an influx of fresh Spanish speaking children (I assume?), but they're not legally allowed to do this. Oyster, because it is a dcps (that's a DC public school), can since it's not a charter.

This, which has been repeated here as nauseum. And yet, while people are willing to thwart a wonderful school's expansion, no one wants to put their energy towards getting charter law changed to allow for language testing. Sad.

[Anonymous]

As a parent at another immersion charter that does not adequately limit enrollment in later grades, I heartily support LAMB limiting enrollment past PK4.

My daughter has had a lost year for second grade this year, in large part because at least two kids were added to the classroom with no background in the language. These kids also had limited discipline and respect for teachers. The result is that both the new kids, and the other twenty some kids in the class have made basically no academic progress this year. Teacher time has been completely directed to their disruptive behavior. Other kids in her class who were barely hanging in there have made a turn for the worse in both behavior and use of the target language. At many times immersion went by the way side as the teachers worked to simply get control of the classroom. At least two teachers quit mid year.

My kid will be fine. I supplement at home and have hired a math tutor. But most of the other kids in her class do not have parents with those resources. Those kids just lost a year of their education.

If you are angry that your kid didn't get into LAMB, lobby for more ECE seats that are immersion, don't ruin LAMB. If your kid is too old, lobby for more schools like Creative Minds, that have extensive language exposure, don't waste your energy on trying to ruin LAMB or other immersion charters that limit enrollment. I really really wish our immersion charter limited enrollment. I will give it one more year, and if third grade isn't any better, we will have to turn to alternative options and not wait around for DCI.

Again, we have the resources to find alternative options, but a good portion of my daughter's class have parents without as much access to alternatives. The school's handling of enrollment of kids without a background in the target language could have major implications in terms of a large number of kids' ability to perform on grade level.

I understand frustration that your kid doesn't make it in to your dream school. I have that same frustration. But that is no reason to ruin the experience for others, especially kids for whom this educational experience could be their ticket out of poverty.