Anonymous wrote:Why can't DCPS refuse to backfill? I'm genuinely curious, and if it's simply DCPS policy that they must backfill all spots as best as possible, so be it.

But it's an odd policy, if so. There are other public school systems in the US that have similar lottery-only Montessori schools and choose not to backfill after first grade, or will only do so when a child is moving from another Montessori school.

Along those lines, does DCPS backfill dual language spots as well, regardless of language exposure or competency?

DCPS is a high-mobility school system generally. Other places may have less students switching their school every year, so not backfilling doesn't create as many empty seats. In DCPS context, not backfilling means spending almost the same amount of money in terms of staff and physical space but serving fewer and fewer kids each year, and that isn't very appealing from a financial perspective.

Now, if it were set up that kids from DCPS' Langdon and Nalle Montessori programs had feeder rights at CHML that might be nice. But it's not very convenient from Nalle. And in the Escape data it doesn't seem like a lot of people are doing that. Part of the problem is CHML's poor performance, but it's also just an age of kid thing. There are plenty of families who want, or are okay with, Montessori for ECE but really aren't bought into it for elementary and middle school grades.

Anonymous wrote:Why can't DCPS refuse to backfill? I'm genuinely curious, and if it's simply DCPS policy that they must backfill all spots as best as possible, so be it.

But it's an odd policy, if so. There are other public school systems in the US that have similar lottery-only Montessori schools and choose not to backfill after first grade, or will only do so when a child is moving from another Montessori school.

Along those lines, does DCPS backfill dual language spots as well, regardless of language exposure or competency?

DCPS can make that choice but they don't want to. In their view yes, schools must be open to new kids to the extent they have room and reasonable class sizes. Yes it's hard to incorporate them, but they have to go somewhere, and CHML for all its faults is no worse than a lot of DCPS middle schools. DCPS does not want to give Montessori schools preferential treatment as far as class size or cost per pupil. The preciousness of some parents whom want "pure Montessori" with no new kids is really not a priority.

The awkward thing with CHML is that without backfilling, they wouldn't have many kids in the upper grades at all. You see this playing out at Lee, for example-- tons of preschoolers dwindles down to very scant numbers in 5th and 6th even though they do add some new kids. So there would be a lot of wasted capacity without backfilling. And the smallness of the upper grades program would limit what can be offered and generally puts people off, because older kids sometimes need a larger setting and feel stifled in a tiny school. And if they didn't maintain numbers by backfilling, the CHML would be much less cost-effective to run.

For dual language in DCPS, there is a competency test for older kids. I suppose they could allow transfers only from other Montessori schools but that definitely plays out in an awkward way socioeconomically and racially.

Why can't DCPS refuse to backfill? I'm genuinely curious, and if it's simply DCPS policy that they must backfill all spots as best as possible, so be it.

But it's an odd policy, if so. There are other public school systems in the US that have similar lottery-only Montessori schools and choose not to backfill after first grade, or will only do so when a child is moving from another Montessori school.

Along those lines, does DCPS backfill dual language spots as well, regardless of language exposure or competency?

The funny is that I think literally any of your available options are good for ECE. PK and K are the best thing about both CHML and TR (I would give the edge to CHML between these two because of the better facility and because I personally like Montessori, but TR's ECE approach is also solid and their teachers are kind).

But JOW would be very good for ECE too. I would try to avoid the swing space but once they are in their new facility, I'd happily send kids there for PK and K.

But if I was at any of the above schools, I'd be lotterying for other schools starting in K and leave at the first opportunity. My list would be:

L-T
Payne
Chisolm
Inspired Teaching
Watkins
Lee Brookland (if you like Montessori)

And I'd throw Maury and SWS on any lottery list just in case you got an insane lottery draw and a lucky year.

I wouldn't want to go past K at TR, CHML, or JOW if I could help it. Though that might change for JOW in a few years. I think the new space is going to be awesome for them, I just wish their administration was more committed to being a neighborhood school.

If it was me I'd do CHML for ECE and then lottery into Ludlow (if possible) or the band new JOW building when it reopens in 2026-7. Neither TR nor CHML are useful for upper elementary and for darn sure not for MS. Stuart Hobson is a WAY better MS option.

Anonymous wrote:A fair comparison would be comparing the performance of CHML to all public Montessori schools in DC. It would be unjust to compare its performance to traditional elementary schools.

CHML is in a tricky position because they are a DCPS, not a charter.

The Montessori charters have the option of not backfilling when kids leave. LAMB, for instance, dies not backfill at all after ECE. It's actually a financial burden and they run a constant deficit because they won't add older kids.

Lee backfills, but not as much as they could or would if they were looking to sustain enrollment. Not as much as CHML does. Also CHML gets extra kids in upper elementary looking for a MS.

DCPS schools do not have as much freedom to refuse to backfill. This creates a circular problem at DCPS, where the influx of kids with no Montessori experience in later grades makes it much harder for them to offer true Montessori, but then this becomes a deterrent for families who are there for the Montessori, so they leave. Resulting in more new kids to take their spots.

It's a shame because CHML is a good idea in theory. All city Montessori close to major commuting hub, PK through middle? There is absolutely demand in DC for this. And their space is beautiful. But DCPS has other goals and won't prioritize CHML's goals, so it falls well short.

It's interesting. I ran a school report card comparison on CHML, LAMB, and Lee Brookland, and CHML seems really, really weak in math. Stronger in ELA. This data has a lot of mixed signals.

Of course it's hard to compare CHML to a language school with a good high school feeder. Lee is the more similar comparator. If I take out LAMB and add Shining Stars, CHML looks better, but only because Shining Stars is such a disaster, wow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A fair comparison would be comparing the performance of CHML to all public Montessori schools in DC. It would be unjust to compare its performance to traditional elementary schools.

It's a DC public school, held to the same standards as every other traditional DCPS public school.

A blanket comparison without a context is meaningless. It is not apple to apple. Though one can compare the stark difference in academic performance between Lamb to CHML.

Anonymous wrote:A fair comparison would be comparing the performance of CHML to all public Montessori schools in DC. It would be unjust to compare its performance to traditional elementary schools.

It's a DC public school, held to the same standards as every other traditional DCPS public school.

A fair comparison would be comparing the performance of CHML to all public Montessori schools in DC. It would be unjust to compare its performance to traditional elementary schools.

I just don't like how Montessori schools blame the new kids. If your retention were better then there wouldn't be so many! It's a self-created problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you are describing is not a Montessori pedagogy problem. This is rather how it is being implemented in a public school setting.
A lottery system with a constant stream of large number of new students is a disservice to the Montessori classroom continuity from year to year. Montessori students require a normalization period and this not going to properly happen in a lottery system.

For the Montessori pedagogy to be effective, it also requires parental engagement to ensure certain continuity between home and school environments, but this is typically challenged when the parents have no clue what Montessori is.

The “can’t stand still” is really not a Montessori problem! It is a societal problem. A properly Montessori- normalized child would usually develop wonderful focus and analytical skills.

I’m the PP and youre not wrong…. The influx of non-Montessori students in yearly is a major problem. They don’t have a clue what Montessori is and they also aren’t being taught it once they are there, especially new 4th and 5th graders. It’s unfair to the students who grew up learning Montessori and understand the model because they are constantly disrupted by students who think school is just a free for all where they can do whatever the want. Admin doesn’t tell them any different either. There are no actual consequences for anything. Again, they actually seem to be rewarded instead. It’s a very backwards, bizarre school.

Why do you think CHML's retention is so poor that it needs to backfill with new students?

...The subpar academics, the behavior issues, teacher turnover, poor admin, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you are describing is not a Montessori pedagogy problem. This is rather how it is being implemented in a public school setting.
A lottery system with a constant stream of large number of new students is a disservice to the Montessori classroom continuity from year to year. Montessori students require a normalization period and this not going to properly happen in a lottery system.

For the Montessori pedagogy to be effective, it also requires parental engagement to ensure certain continuity between home and school environments, but this is typically challenged when the parents have no clue what Montessori is.

The “can’t stand still” is really not a Montessori problem! It is a societal problem. A properly Montessori- normalized child would usually develop wonderful focus and analytical skills.

I’m the PP and youre not wrong…. The influx of non-Montessori students in yearly is a major problem. They don’t have a clue what Montessori is and they also aren’t being taught it once they are there, especially new 4th and 5th graders. It’s unfair to the students who grew up learning Montessori and understand the model because they are constantly disrupted by students who think school is just a free for all where they can do whatever the want. Admin doesn’t tell them any different either. There are no actual consequences for anything. Again, they actually seem to be rewarded instead. It’s a very backwards, bizarre school.

Why do you think CHML's retention is so poor that it needs to backfill with new students?