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!

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

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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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.