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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

LAMB's demographic skews very high SES. The only HRCs with higher SES are YY and CM, though MV may be close. Stokes & DC Bi accept students at later grades, and Stokes does French as well. Montessori does not add a great level of complexity, if it did then Montessori schools all over the country (not to mention just DC) wouldn't continue to add students after age 4. Furthermore, YY doesn't have an English track. It has a specialized classroom for students with specialized education needs. Not at all the same thing.

Lamb has the highest percentage of English Language Learners in DC. The lower grades are more high Ses. Not at Yu Ying but it is my understanding that YY does have a classroom for students who struggle with Chinese. LAMB does not have this for Spanish. Montessori is in fact complex enough that DCPS schools do limit admission in the upper grades. Do your research before you post lies online.

According to this year's MSDC lottery results:

CHML offered spots in PK3, PK4, 3rd, 7th and 8th in this year's lottery
Breakthrough: PK3, PK4
Nalle offered in PK3
Langdon offered in PK3, PK4, and K
Lee offered in PK3, PK4 and 1st
SSMA in PK3, PK4, 1st and 2nd

There. I did the research for you and then posted truths online.
Shining Stars

I don't know if it's true or not, by Logan claims that applicants should have previous experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everybody so pissed off at LAMB all the time? So they want to run a separate lottery (that follows charter law) and they have a charter that allows them to limit entry years? Why do we have to keep nattering away at them? They are doing an excellent job with the kids they have, and they have expanded so that they can continue to offer slots to as many new families as possible.

They're probably taking way more new kids than a small school like Stokes is, and nobody's complaining about Stokes.

+1. It's a bit weird that there is so much sour talk about LAMB. Aren't they expanding so that they can serve more kids in the city and open their program up and let more people in?

The "illegal lottery" poster, and Montessori Lite, and BFD poster write in an almost identical manner. Pretty much anything they say is a lie. For example, LAMB did have a language preference lottery until they were told to stop. Then they stopped. It wasn't illegal until they were told to stop. That point has evaded the crazed mind of the illegal lottery poster. Anyone who has actually gone to lamb and done some research knows it's not Montessori Lite. This has been shown time and time again on these boards, so feel free to do a search. Montessori Lite has actually stopped posting about this so there you go. And the BFD poster refuses to understand that her special snowflake will likely not be able to be placed at LAMB since it would just affect a handful of students who won't speak the language or understand the Montessori way. But setting kids up for failure is less important than bragging about sending them to a Montessori Bilingual school to them.

Some people are just angry for whatever reason. I don't care what your rants are, but try to keep from posting lies to prove your point.

Wrong on several counts. I'm not the "illegal lottery" poster or the Montessori Lite poster. I'm just the BFD poster, so I suggest you consider that there's more than one person in opposition.

Secondly, I'm not worried in the slightest about my special snowflake. He is succeeding in Chinese with an IB curriculum, which was by far our first choice. LAMB didn't impress me much - this would be why I question their inability to integrate a handful of 5 year-olds. Nonetheless, there is obviously a dearth of quality opportunities for ES level students in DC, and LAMB's determination to take public funding without serving the public strikes me as contrary to the mission of the public in a public charter school.

I also find the pearl-clutching defense of the Montessori Way to be laughable on its face. Aidan Montessori (Woodley Park) has been a Montessori school in DC for over 50 years, and continues to accept students in its Toddler, Primary, Lower Elementary, and Upper Elementary classrooms. Evidently good Montessori schools can integrate not just 5 year-olds, but 5th-graders. Thus, your desperation to build a moat to keep out the uninitiated Montessori toddlers rings hollow.

Ergo, BFD.

Q.E.D.

Not the poster you are responding to, but how do you equate their restricted entry years to "taking public funding without serving the public"? This is an extremely offensive charge about a Tier 1 charter that has done an exemplary job of educating students. Even their split lottery was an attempt to get more native Spanish speakers into the program, which not only helped the quality of the program but also helped get more low-income kids into the school. It is no coincidence that the FARMS rate has been falling since they got rid of the dual lottery. (And I say that a parent who applied under the dual lottery knowing that our chances as a native English family were much lower.)

Again, I don't understand why so many people want to bitch at LAMB for doing things their way when they are obviously meeting the challenge of educating their students effectively and expanding to accommodate as many kids as they can.

HAHAHAHAHA AIDEN MONTESSORI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh my goodness you are both crazy and wildly uninformed. Do you have any idea how many people Aiden rejects? They DO NOT accept kids without Montessori backgrounds either. It may not be explicit on their website, but feel free to call them.

Here is what their own website says:

Aidan Montessori School welcomes all prospective applicants and their families.

We admit students regardless of race, creed, color, and national or ethnic origin, and are non-discriminatory in all our policies and school-administered programs.

We make Admissions decisions based on many factors with consideration given to gender, age, and a comfortable fit within a Montessori environment as dictated by the balance of the existing multi-age class. We give priority consideration to siblings of enrolled students who have not applied out and to children of alumni families and faculty and staff.

[Anonymous]

The hysteria on both sides is so overblown. LAMB should be able to integrate a handful of new students in grades past PK4, but probably not all later grades. Certainly K. It's not going to break the school that's ludicrous. It makes people mad that LAMB doesn't backfill and ends up losing half the class because the unfilled spaces seem squandered. And the fact that they add additional PK4 seats doesn't solve the problem because the K spots seem squandered to the parents in the K grade. But also, obviously LAMB serves the public and does it well and isn't motivated by neferious reasons. But the super restrictive entry years make people feel it's elitist and unnecessarily exclusive, and that's why they get upset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The hysteria on both sides is so overblown. LAMB should be able to integrate a handful of new students in grades past PK4, but probably not all later grades. Certainly K. It's not going to break the school that's ludicrous. It makes people mad that LAMB doesn't backfill and ends up losing half the class because the unfilled spaces seem squandered. And the fact that they add additional PK4 seats doesn't solve the problem because the K spots seem squandered to the parents in the K grade. But also, obviously LAMB serves the public and does it well and isn't motivated by neferious reasons. But the super restrictive entry years make people feel it's elitist and unnecessarily exclusive, and that's why they get upset.

Agree, but I don't think they should fill K slots, they should instead use that slot to fill a seat for a kid in PK4, which is what I think they do already.

Also people, this is maybe 2 seats a year we are discussing. Lamb has expanded several times, so looking at current numbers of students isn't an accurate picture. But the reality is that most kids stay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The hysteria on both sides is so overblown. LAMB should be able to integrate a handful of new students in grades past PK4, but probably not all later grades. Certainly K. It's not going to break the school that's ludicrous. It makes people mad that LAMB doesn't backfill and ends up losing half the class because the unfilled spaces seem squandered. And the fact that they add additional PK4 seats doesn't solve the problem because the K spots seem squandered to the parents in the K grade. But also, obviously LAMB serves the public and does it well and isn't motivated by neferious reasons. But the super restrictive entry years make people feel it's elitist and unnecessarily exclusive, and that's why they get upset.

They are stupid for getting upset, because LAMB isn't losing half the class between PK4 and K or even PK4 and 1. You don't need to have class sizes that are exactly the same all the way up. The model of front-loading ECE to accommodate attrition is just a different way of structuring the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hysteria on both sides is so overblown. LAMB should be able to integrate a handful of new students in grades past PK4, but probably not all later grades. Certainly K. It's not going to break the school that's ludicrous. It makes people mad that LAMB doesn't backfill and ends up losing half the class because the unfilled spaces seem squandered. And the fact that they add additional PK4 seats doesn't solve the problem because the K spots seem squandered to the parents in the K grade. But also, obviously LAMB serves the public and does it well and isn't motivated by neferious reasons. But the super restrictive entry years make people feel it's elitist and unnecessarily exclusive, and that's why they get upset.

They are stupid for getting upset, because LAMB isn't losing half the class between PK4 and K or even PK4 and 1. You don't need to have class sizes that are exactly the same all the way up. The model of front-loading ECE to accommodate attrition is just a different way of structuring the school.

Honestly wish that every language immersion school was like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hysteria on both sides is so overblown. LAMB should be able to integrate a handful of new students in grades past PK4, but probably not all later grades. Certainly K. It's not going to break the school that's ludicrous. It makes people mad that LAMB doesn't backfill and ends up losing half the class because the unfilled spaces seem squandered. And the fact that they add additional PK4 seats doesn't solve the problem because the K spots seem squandered to the parents in the K grade. But also, obviously LAMB serves the public and does it well and isn't motivated by neferious reasons. But the super restrictive entry years make people feel it's elitist and unnecessarily exclusive, and that's why they get upset.

They are stupid for getting upset, because LAMB isn't losing half the class between PK4 and K or even PK4 and 1. You don't need to have class sizes that are exactly the same all the way up. The model of front-loading ECE to accommodate attrition is just a different way of structuring the school.

I don't think they are stupid. Some kids leave in K, and the parents are annoyed that somebody took a coveted spot and then left in K and there is nothing to be done about it. It is a spot that their kid could have theoretically had (not likely but possible). Filling with PK4 doesn't help the K parents. Filling in K would at least make it better so that people don't use coveted spots just for preschool years and then leave for K. Again, not a lot of people, but maybe some. The point that it is no a lot of people really supports the argument that its not going to make a big difference for the school but could make a big difference for a couple kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hysteria on both sides is so overblown. LAMB should be able to integrate a handful of new students in grades past PK4, but probably not all later grades. Certainly K. It's not going to break the school that's ludicrous. It makes people mad that LAMB doesn't backfill and ends up losing half the class because the unfilled spaces seem squandered. And the fact that they add additional PK4 seats doesn't solve the problem because the K spots seem squandered to the parents in the K grade. But also, obviously LAMB serves the public and does it well and isn't motivated by neferious reasons. But the super restrictive entry years make people feel it's elitist and unnecessarily exclusive, and that's why they get upset.

They are stupid for getting upset, because LAMB isn't losing half the class between PK4 and K or even PK4 and 1. You don't need to have class sizes that are exactly the same all the way up. The model of front-loading ECE to accommodate attrition is just a different way of structuring the school.

I don't think they are stupid. Some kids leave in K, and the parents are annoyed that somebody took a coveted spot and then left in K and there is nothing to be done about it. It is a spot that their kid could have theoretically had (not likely but possible). Filling with PK4 doesn't help the K parents. Filling in K would at least make it better so that people don't use coveted spots just for preschool years and then leave for K. Again, not a lot of people, but maybe some. The point that it is no a lot of people really supports the argument that its not going to make a big difference for the school but could make a big difference for a couple kids.

As has been pointed out before, adding kids in K would mean entirely changing their curriculum where K kids are partnered with Pk3 kids. A big part of being a kindergartener is being a leader in the classroom. Kids filled in K would miss out on this and two years of Spanish. It means totally reworking the way the school is run. It would be a HUGE difference for a school and would make a less than 1% difference for other kids.

[Anonymous]

Not to the kids who get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to the kids who get in.

But now they take an additional prek 4 kid who gets an additional year at the school so someone is already benefiting.

[Anonymous]

Give it a rest. They are in the middle of a vote to expand the school yet again, which will accommodate several more children every year. The ills of the DC public education system are not going to be solved by forcing LAMB to change its charter.

[Anonymous]

It would seem like it should be evident to the LAMB parents who won the lottery that some kids get in despite the odds and that it makes a big difference to be the winner to the kid who wins, even if most people lose. Just because the odds are bad doesn't mean nothing should change.

The sky won't fall with a couple extra K kids. That's the overblown hysteria exactly.

[Anonymous]

For the love! Let the 3 Kers in for goodness sake. LAMB parent here. I don't think a few Kers would cause any enormous problems. Let LAMB limit their numbers though. Since there would only be a handful anyways, let them say a max of 5 or so Kers would be let in. They'd be dispersed amongst all of the ECE communities and the other kids would be able to provide mentorship. Just don't let anymore beyond that. Win-win. Make lemonade, people.

[Anonymous]

It's easy to say give it a rest when you're in the privileged position and happy with the situation as it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

LAMB's demographic skews very high SES. The only HRCs with higher SES are YY and CM, though MV may be close. Stokes & DC Bi accept students at later grades, and Stokes does French as well. Montessori does not add a great level of complexity, if it did then Montessori schools all over the country (not to mention just DC) wouldn't continue to add students after age 4. Furthermore, YY doesn't have an English track. It has a specialized classroom for students with specialized education needs. Not at all the same thing.

Lamb has the highest percentage of English Language Learners in DC. The lower grades are more high Ses. Not at Yu Ying but it is my understanding that YY does have a classroom for students who struggle with Chinese. LAMB does not have this for Spanish. Montessori is in fact complex enough that DCPS schools do limit admission in the upper grades. Do your research before you post lies online.

Lamb 2014-15

342 students
Special Ed - 12.3%
ELL - 37.7%
Econ Disadvantaged - 24%

Yu Ying 2014-15

528 students
Special Ed - 8.3%
ELL - 5.9%
Econ Disadvantaged 9.5%

For a DC public school, 24% is pretty well off. Not to mention, how exactly is it a handicap to be an ELL native Spanish speaker in an immersion environment where the target language is Spanish? If anything, one could argue it's an advantage. So that point goes right out the window. Couldn't find the SpEd data, but MV looks a lot like LAMB. MV has slightly lower ELL, but much higher FARMS. Stokes has similar ELL and very much higher FARMS.

The case for LAMB needing special rules just doesn't seem to be there.

Mundo Verde
237 students
SpEd - ?
ELL - 33%
FARMS - 27%

DC BI
405 students
SpEd - 12%
ELL - ?
FARMS - 86%

Shining Stars Montessori
165 students
SpEd - 4%
ELL - 19%
FARMS - 38%

Stokes
350 students
SpEd - 10%
ELL - 34%
FARMS - 68%

Bridges
143 students
SpEd - 24%
ELL - 40%
FARMS - 68%