Anonymous wrote:If the teachers are unhappy or resent the collaboration, then it isn't working.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll try to be specific, but vague enough to be anonymous.

Silent lunch has been an issue all year. Partly because we don't want our kids to have to sit in silence during lunch, but also because of the lack of transparency, shifting explanations, and sometimes outright lying about it has eroded trust, regardless of what you think of the actual policy.

There is also an emphasis on making sure all teachers in a grade teach the exact same thing. While I can see the advantages, it makes teachers really uunhappy, which is not good. It is also used as an excuse by some teachers to just teach to the middle, rather than attempt differentiation. I have one kid who is generally above grade level and one kid who is generally below grade level, and this has been a problem for both of them.

That's because the teachers aren't good at it. At the best schools (yes, some of them public) there is a great deal of collaboration between teachers (notably at immersion schools).

Teachers at schools like Lafayette and Murch and Janney and other WOTP can get away with being very lazy. The students are so strong because of family supports that teachers aren't challenged or necessarily very good. They just need to be liked. They students' families will do all the work of academic preparation in the ECE and elementary years.

Anonymous wrote:I'm heartened to read some sane responses here. And wonder what kind of teacher complains to parents about their boss? I's a unique relationship, but I sure wouldn't complain about my boss to clients or other stakeholders having anything to do with my own job - perhaps a lateral co-worker sometimes, or a friend, but otherwise it's really unprofessional. And I would think less of that teacher honestly.

My understanding is that the 'silent lunch' is 7 silent minutes at the beginning of each lunch period - not the entire period. My kid has never complained and somehow still doesn't always manage to finish lunch, so I'm grateful for it. Whomever is writing 'she'll be gone soon' sounds creepy and I hope that family opts for a private school. in MoCo and PG (and our own DC Charters) there have been incidents made public about molesters in classrooms. There are bigger problems than what's going on at Lafayette. We should appreciate how great we have it, even if it's not perfect, and put our energy to better use.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that silent lunch exists or would even be considered as a "solution" is a testament to the fact that our elementary schools are overcrowded. The descriptions of the way lunch is, the way it has to be, the sheer numbers that have to be fed (AND walked thru the hallways AND seated AND cleaned up AND moved out) -- it all demonstrates one of the ways children don't benefit from massive schools. In this whole DMV area, we have such huge elementary schools and this is just one of the (many) ways it's far from ideal for children at the elementary level.

Sure, but what's going to happen to the property values of the families you kick out of Lafayette?

Anonymous wrote:The fact that silent lunch exists or would even be considered as a "solution" is a testament to the fact that our elementary schools are overcrowded. The descriptions of the way lunch is, the way it has to be, the sheer numbers that have to be fed (AND walked thru the hallways AND seated AND cleaned up AND moved out) -- it all demonstrates one of the ways children don't benefit from massive schools. In this whole DMV area, we have such huge elementary schools and this is just one of the (many) ways it's far from ideal for children at the elementary level.

Anonymous wrote:I'll try to be specific, but vague enough to be anonymous.

Silent lunch has been an issue all year. Partly because we don't want our kids to have to sit in silence during lunch, but also because of the lack of transparency, shifting explanations, and sometimes outright lying about it has eroded trust, regardless of what you think of the actual policy.

There is also an emphasis on making sure all teachers in a grade teach the exact same thing. While I can see the advantages, it makes teachers really uunhappy, which is not good. It is also used as an excuse by some teachers to just teach to the middle, rather than attempt differentiation. I have one kid who is generally above grade level and one kid who is generally below grade level, and this has been a problem for both of them.

Anonymous wrote:Murch classes rotate teachers by subject from 2nd or 3rd grade up, so there is a science teacher in each grade who teaches science (and only science) to every student in the grade, every day. Four core teachers: one science, one math, two ELA/social studies combined for a double period. Every grade also has a daily enrichment period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can promise you, we do not do science everyday

Well, my 4th grader does.

Anonymous wrote:I can promise you, we do not do science everyday

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha! OP - don't think it's any different at Janney, Murch or Mann. Uber educated liberal NW - it can be a lot to stomach.

Oh yes it is different!

So list the ways it differs from Murch and Janney.

One difference between Lafayette and Mann is that Mann has a science teacher and dedicated science time. Lafayette has neither, although some teachers are better than others at teaching science in the classroom.