Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen. Montessori should be serving more low income families or it should be eliminated.

Should ATS as well? Fun fact: no one who didn't attend aps montessori preschool got into Drew montessori this year. I'm not sure all the preschoolers got in, and they are first in line for admission. That means an income requirement is already baked into montessori admission. Aps montesorri preschool does have a 2/3 set aside for families making less than about 80k a year. It's not the same thing as farms, which basically means being on food stamps. But its better than nothing; no other option school has income requirements for admission, so why are you picking on the one that does? It's not like montessori is some bastion of privilege like virtually all NA neighborhood elementaries.

Because when it moves and the program is disaggregated from the Drew neighborhood school, we will find that not only aren't you a Title 1 school, but you may not have any significant number of fr/l students, regardless of the 2/3 set aside. All the other option schools have VPI set-asides, which is the right thing to do in order to ensure low-income students have access to those opportunities. You don't have ANY set-aside for those students. NONE. You should have 1/3 for truly low income, especially for the kids who will live nearby in Gilliam Place and at The Wellington. You could get there by making the Pre-K years free for those whose families qualify for fr/l, and you could make up the difference by making another income bracket at the higher end of the sliding scale (doesn't it top out at like $200,000? That's pretty much every dual income household in North Arlington, so make another for $250,000 and another for $300,000 and up). I actually think the program is great and would benefit truly low-income kids, ESPECIALLY for Pre-K. Why can't we find a way to get them there as 3 year olds? That would be a very smart use of limited resources in closing the opportunity/achievement gap.

AGREE 1000%!!! The sliding scales need revamping - not just for Montessori; but in general. It's the people in the middle who get screwed - make too much to get any breaks; not enough for all the fees for things to not become difficult to manage. But let's start with Montessori. Cause let's face it, Montessori is a private system. It is an absolute luxury to have a public Montessori program. The 2/3 set-aside for "low-income" doesn't play out the way APS Montessori would like everyone to think it does. They claim going to a diverse, Title I school; but it is Title I because of Drew neighborhood program. I am anxious to see the real demographics of the Montessori program.

Montessori has also been having difficulty getting the 2/3 portion even with the 80% AMI cut-off. So what does that suggest for the economic demographics of the school? And I won't be surprised one bit if the new Montessori PTA suddenly brings in a healthy PTA budget, even though they comprised 3/4 of the student body at Drew and the Drew PTA had practically nothing.

Again, regardless of what Montessori folks say, Montessori costs money to run with its extra teachers and remodeling buildings to "suit the Montessori learning style." Not only should the sliding scale be extended to higher income brackets, the differences in costs from one bracket to the next should be more significant.

It may not be a "bastion of privilege" like most NA elementaries; but it sure has the advocacy group of one and and enjoys its own special benefits.

I hope you are as enthusiastic about improving Drew as you are about putting the crosshairs on montessori.

Fwiw, montessori costs aps about the same as immersion, once you factor in the intersessions.

The real problem most people have with montessori and option schools in general is the sense that some kids (the SA middle and UMC, mostly) are getting a something akin to a NA neighborhood elementary experience "without paying for it". This is the NA mindset again, that if you want a good elementary classroom experience for your kid you have to pay for it : buy an overpriced house in NA. Any efforts to do otherwise - rezoning to break up school segregation, busses across the DMZ I mean 50, expanding option schools , these are forms of cheating the status quo that says north wealthy, south poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope you are as enthusiastic about improving Drew as you are about putting the crosshairs on montessori.

Fwiw, montessori costs aps about the same as immersion, once you factor in the intersessions.

The real problem most people have with montessori and option schools in general is the sense that some kids (the SA middle and UMC, mostly) are getting a something akin to a NA neighborhood elementary experience "without paying for it". This is the NA mindset again, that if you want a good elementary classroom experience for your kid you have to pay for it : buy an overpriced house in NA. Any efforts to do otherwise - rezoning to break up school segregation, busses across the DMZ I mean 50, expanding option schools , these are forms of cheating the status quo that says north wealthy, south poor.

Actually, I am tenfold more enthusiastic about improving Drew than I am about Montessori. Montessori is doing fine. Drew isn't. I'm not putting the crosshairs on Montessori - that co-location problem should have been fixed YEARS ago for the sake of students in BOTH programs. But the neighborhood program kids are the ones who really irreparably suffered, not the Montessori kids.

Immersion doesn't have intersessions - you're mixing Immersion and Barcroft's year-round calendar. And it doesn't cost the same if one program is getting 4 additional weeks of learning, which at least students pay something for. Plus, Barcroft students will continue to benefit from Title I funds (as long as Title I still pays out). It's questionable how the Title I funds at Drew were truly allocated and if Montessori doesn't qualify on its own, then APS will be paying 100% of the program's costs.

Intersessions don't have to be as costly as this superintendent has made them by only allowing "highly qualified teachers" teach the classes -- and Arlington pays teachers at their current/most recent salary. Alexandria does not. The only highly qualified teachers available during intersession times are current Barcroft teachers who want their full time off, too; or retired teachers whose salaries are higher.

Besides, I don't see how agreeing that the sliding scale for Montessori preK should be revised is a criticism of Montessori. Or stating facts like Montessori costs more to run than a neighborhood school and has a very strong advocacy group. It is by nature protected from large classes, and has two teachers in those small classes. You don't consider those privileged-like benefits?

Also, I live in south Arlington and put two kids through south arlington schools. I have never once heard anyone express or even suggest "the sense that some kids (the SA middle and UMC, mostly) are getting a something akin to a NA neighborhood elementary experience "without paying for it".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen. Montessori should be serving more low income families or it should be eliminated.

Should ATS as well? Fun fact: no one who didn't attend aps montessori preschool got into Drew montessori this year. I'm not sure all the preschoolers got in, and they are first in line for admission. That means an income requirement is already baked into montessori admission. Aps montesorri preschool does have a 2/3 set aside for families making less than about 80k a year. It's not the same thing as farms, which basically means being on food stamps. But its better than nothing; no other option school has income requirements for admission, so why are you picking on the one that does? It's not like montessori is some bastion of privilege like virtually all NA neighborhood elementaries.

Because when it moves and the program is disaggregated from the Drew neighborhood school, we will find that not only aren't you a Title 1 school, but you may not have any significant number of fr/l students, regardless of the 2/3 set aside. All the other option schools have VPI set-asides, which is the right thing to do in order to ensure low-income students have access to those opportunities. You don't have ANY set-aside for those students. NONE. You should have 1/3 for truly low income, especially for the kids who will live nearby in Gilliam Place and at The Wellington. You could get there by making the Pre-K years free for those whose families qualify for fr/l, and you could make up the difference by making another income bracket at the higher end of the sliding scale (doesn't it top out at like $200,000? That's pretty much every dual income household in North Arlington, so make another for $250,000 and another for $300,000 and up). I actually think the program is great and would benefit truly low-income kids, ESPECIALLY for Pre-K. Why can't we find a way to get them there as 3 year olds? That would be a very smart use of limited resources in closing the opportunity/achievement gap.

AGREE 1000%!!! The sliding scales need revamping - not just for Montessori; but in general. It's the people in the middle who get screwed - make too much to get any breaks; not enough for all the fees for things to not become difficult to manage. But let's start with Montessori. Cause let's face it, Montessori is a private system. It is an absolute luxury to have a public Montessori program. The 2/3 set-aside for "low-income" doesn't play out the way APS Montessori would like everyone to think it does. They claim going to a diverse, Title I school; but it is Title I because of Drew neighborhood program. I am anxious to see the real demographics of the Montessori program.

Montessori has also been having difficulty getting the 2/3 portion even with the 80% AMI cut-off. So what does that suggest for the economic demographics of the school? And I won't be surprised one bit if the new Montessori PTA suddenly brings in a healthy PTA budget, even though they comprised 3/4 of the student body at Drew and the Drew PTA had practically nothing.

Again, regardless of what Montessori folks say, Montessori costs money to run with its extra teachers and remodeling buildings to "suit the Montessori learning style." Not only should the sliding scale be extended to higher income brackets, the differences in costs from one bracket to the next should be more significant.

It may not be a "bastion of privilege" like most NA elementaries; but it sure has the advocacy group of one and and enjoys its own special benefits.

I hope you are as enthusiastic about improving Drew as you are about putting the crosshairs on montessori.

Fwiw, montessori costs aps about the same as immersion, once you factor in the intersessions.

The real problem most people have with montessori and option schools in general is the sense that some kids (the SA middle and UMC, mostly) are getting a something akin to a NA neighborhood elementary experience "without paying for it". This is the NA mindset again, that if you want a good elementary classroom experience for your kid you have to pay for it : buy an overpriced house in NA. Any efforts to do otherwise - rezoning to break up school segregation, busses across the DMZ I mean 50, expanding option schools , these are forms of cheating the status quo that says north wealthy, south poor.

Actually, I am tenfold more enthusiastic about improving Drew than I am about Montessori. Montessori is doing fine. Drew isn't. I'm not putting the crosshairs on Montessori - that co-location problem should have been fixed YEARS ago for the sake of students in BOTH programs. But the neighborhood program kids are the ones who really irreparably suffered, not the Montessori kids.

Immersion doesn't have intersessions - you're mixing Immersion and Barcroft's year-round calendar. And it doesn't cost the same if one program is getting 4 additional weeks of learning, which at least students pay something for. Plus, Barcroft students will continue to benefit from Title I funds (as long as Title I still pays out). It's questionable how the Title I funds at Drew were truly allocated and if Montessori doesn't qualify on its own, then APS will be paying 100% of the program's costs.

Intersessions don't have to be as costly as this superintendent has made them by only allowing "highly qualified teachers" teach the classes -- and Arlington pays teachers at their current/most recent salary. Alexandria does not. The only highly qualified teachers available during intersession times are current Barcroft teachers who want their full time off, too; or retired teachers whose salaries are higher.

Besides, I don't see how agreeing that the sliding scale for Montessori preK should be revised is a criticism of Montessori. Or stating facts like Montessori costs more to run than a neighborhood school and has a very strong advocacy group. It is by nature protected from large classes, and has two teachers in those small classes. You don't consider those privileged-like benefits?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen. Montessori should be serving more low income families or it should be eliminated.

Should ATS as well? Fun fact: no one who didn't attend aps montessori preschool got into Drew montessori this year. I'm not sure all the preschoolers got in, and they are first in line for admission. That means an income requirement is already baked into montessori admission. Aps montesorri preschool does have a 2/3 set aside for families making less than about 80k a year. It's not the same thing as farms, which basically means being on food stamps. But its better than nothing; no other option school has income requirements for admission, so why are you picking on the one that does? It's not like montessori is some bastion of privilege like virtually all NA neighborhood elementaries.

Because when it moves and the program is disaggregated from the Drew neighborhood school, we will find that not only aren't you a Title 1 school, but you may not have any significant number of fr/l students, regardless of the 2/3 set aside. All the other option schools have VPI set-asides, which is the right thing to do in order to ensure low-income students have access to those opportunities. You don't have ANY set-aside for those students. NONE. You should have 1/3 for truly low income, especially for the kids who will live nearby in Gilliam Place and at The Wellington. You could get there by making the Pre-K years free for those whose families qualify for fr/l, and you could make up the difference by making another income bracket at the higher end of the sliding scale (doesn't it top out at like $200,000? That's pretty much every dual income household in North Arlington, so make another for $250,000 and another for $300,000 and up). I actually think the program is great and would benefit truly low-income kids, ESPECIALLY for Pre-K. Why can't we find a way to get them there as 3 year olds? That would be a very smart use of limited resources in closing the opportunity/achievement gap.

AGREE 1000%!!! The sliding scales need revamping - not just for Montessori; but in general. It's the people in the middle who get screwed - make too much to get any breaks; not enough for all the fees for things to not become difficult to manage. But let's start with Montessori. Cause let's face it, Montessori is a private system. It is an absolute luxury to have a public Montessori program. The 2/3 set-aside for "low-income" doesn't play out the way APS Montessori would like everyone to think it does. They claim going to a diverse, Title I school; but it is Title I because of Drew neighborhood program. I am anxious to see the real demographics of the Montessori program.

Montessori has also been having difficulty getting the 2/3 portion even with the 80% AMI cut-off. So what does that suggest for the economic demographics of the school? And I won't be surprised one bit if the new Montessori PTA suddenly brings in a healthy PTA budget, even though they comprised 3/4 of the student body at Drew and the Drew PTA had practically nothing.

Again, regardless of what Montessori folks say, Montessori costs money to run with its extra teachers and remodeling buildings to "suit the Montessori learning style." Not only should the sliding scale be extended to higher income brackets, the differences in costs from one bracket to the next should be more significant.

It may not be a "bastion of privilege" like most NA elementaries; but it sure has the advocacy group of one and and enjoys its own special benefits.

I hope you are as enthusiastic about improving Drew as you are about putting the crosshairs on montessori.

Fwiw, montessori costs aps about the same as immersion, once you factor in the intersessions.

The real problem most people have with montessori and option schools in general is the sense that some kids (the SA middle and UMC, mostly) are getting a something akin to a NA neighborhood elementary experience "without paying for it". This is the NA mindset again, that if you want a good elementary classroom experience for your kid you have to pay for it : buy an overpriced house in NA. Any efforts to do otherwise - rezoning to break up school segregation, busses across the DMZ I mean 50, expanding option schools , these are forms of cheating the status quo that says north wealthy, south poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen. Montessori should be serving more low income families or it should be eliminated.

Should ATS as well? Fun fact: no one who didn't attend aps montessori preschool got into Drew montessori this year. I'm not sure all the preschoolers got in, and they are first in line for admission. That means an income requirement is already baked into montessori admission. Aps montesorri preschool does have a 2/3 set aside for families making less than about 80k a year. It's not the same thing as farms, which basically means being on food stamps. But its better than nothing; no other option school has income requirements for admission, so why are you picking on the one that does? It's not like montessori is some bastion of privilege like virtually all NA neighborhood elementaries.

Because when it moves and the program is disaggregated from the Drew neighborhood school, we will find that not only aren't you a Title 1 school, but you may not have any significant number of fr/l students, regardless of the 2/3 set aside. All the other option schools have VPI set-asides, which is the right thing to do in order to ensure low-income students have access to those opportunities. You don't have ANY set-aside for those students. NONE. You should have 1/3 for truly low income, especially for the kids who will live nearby in Gilliam Place and at The Wellington. You could get there by making the Pre-K years free for those whose families qualify for fr/l, and you could make up the difference by making another income bracket at the higher end of the sliding scale (doesn't it top out at like $200,000? That's pretty much every dual income household in North Arlington, so make another for $250,000 and another for $300,000 and up). I actually think the program is great and would benefit truly low-income kids, ESPECIALLY for Pre-K. Why can't we find a way to get them there as 3 year olds? That would be a very smart use of limited resources in closing the opportunity/achievement gap.

AGREE 1000%!!! The sliding scales need revamping - not just for Montessori; but in general. It's the people in the middle who get screwed - make too much to get any breaks; not enough for all the fees for things to not become difficult to manage. But let's start with Montessori. Cause let's face it, Montessori is a private system. It is an absolute luxury to have a public Montessori program. The 2/3 set-aside for "low-income" doesn't play out the way APS Montessori would like everyone to think it does. They claim going to a diverse, Title I school; but it is Title I because of Drew neighborhood program. I am anxious to see the real demographics of the Montessori program.

Montessori has also been having difficulty getting the 2/3 portion even with the 80% AMI cut-off. So what does that suggest for the economic demographics of the school? And I won't be surprised one bit if the new Montessori PTA suddenly brings in a healthy PTA budget, even though they comprised 3/4 of the student body at Drew and the Drew PTA had practically nothing.

Again, regardless of what Montessori folks say, Montessori costs money to run with its extra teachers and remodeling buildings to "suit the Montessori learning style." Not only should the sliding scale be extended to higher income brackets, the differences in costs from one bracket to the next should be more significant.

It may not be a "bastion of privilege" like most NA elementaries; but it sure has the advocacy group of one and and enjoys its own special benefits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen. Montessori should be serving more low income families or it should be eliminated.

Should ATS as well? Fun fact: no one who didn't attend aps montessori preschool got into Drew montessori this year. I'm not sure all the preschoolers got in, and they are first in line for admission. That means an income requirement is already baked into montessori admission. Aps montesorri preschool does have a 2/3 set aside for families making less than about 80k a year. It's not the same thing as farms, which basically means being on food stamps. But its better than nothing; no other option school has income requirements for admission, so why are you picking on the one that does? It's not like montessori is some bastion of privilege like virtually all NA neighborhood elementaries.

Because when it moves and the program is disaggregated from the Drew neighborhood school, we will find that not only aren't you a Title 1 school, but you may not have any significant number of fr/l students, regardless of the 2/3 set aside. All the other option schools have VPI set-asides, which is the right thing to do in order to ensure low-income students have access to those opportunities. You don't have ANY set-aside for those students. NONE. You should have 1/3 for truly low income, especially for the kids who will live nearby in Gilliam Place and at The Wellington. You could get there by making the Pre-K years free for those whose families qualify for fr/l, and you could make up the difference by making another income bracket at the higher end of the sliding scale (doesn't it top out at like $200,000? That's pretty much every dual income household in North Arlington, so make another for $250,000 and another for $300,000 and up). I actually think the program is great and would benefit truly low-income kids, ESPECIALLY for Pre-K. Why can't we find a way to get them there as 3 year olds? That would be a very smart use of limited resources in closing the opportunity/achievement gap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen. Montessori should be serving more low income families or it should be eliminated.

Should ATS as well? Fun fact: no one who didn't attend aps montessori preschool got into Drew montessori this year. I'm not sure all the preschoolers got in, and they are first in line for admission. That means an income requirement is already baked into montessori admission. Aps montesorri preschool does have a 2/3 set aside for families making less than about 80k a year. It's not the same thing as farms, which basically means being on food stamps. But its better than nothing; no other option school has income requirements for admission, so why are you picking on the one that does? It's not like montessori is some bastion of privilege like virtually all NA neighborhood elementaries.

Because when it moves and the program is disaggregated from the Drew neighborhood school, we will find that not only aren't you a Title 1 school, but you may not have any significant number of fr/l students, regardless of the 2/3 set aside. All the other option schools have VPI set-asides, which is the right thing to do in order to ensure low-income students have access to those opportunities. You don't have ANY set-aside for those students. NONE. You should have 1/3 for truly low income, especially for the kids who will live nearby in Gilliam Place and at The Wellington. You could get there by making the Pre-K years free for those whose families qualify for fr/l, and you could make up the difference by making another income bracket at the higher end of the sliding scale (doesn't it top out at like $200,000? That's pretty much every dual income household in North Arlington, so make another for $250,000 and another for $300,000 and up). I actually think the program is great and would benefit truly low-income kids, ESPECIALLY for Pre-K. Why can't we find a way to get them there as 3 year olds? That would be a very smart use of limited resources in closing the opportunity/achievement gap.

The vpi eligibility cutoff is the same as Montessori preschool - 80% of ami. It's not just kids on food stamps. True, there's no tuition. But that's a trade off compared to montessori too. Montessori families pay on a sliding scale, so it costs something for the truly destitute and I agree, it shouldn't. On the other hand vpi is free for people who could certainly afford to pay something, like similarly situated montessori families do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen. Montessori should be serving more low income families or it should be eliminated.

Should ATS as well? Fun fact: no one who didn't attend aps montessori preschool got into Drew montessori this year. I'm not sure all the preschoolers got in, and they are first in line for admission. That means an income requirement is already baked into montessori admission. Aps montesorri preschool does have a 2/3 set aside for families making less than about 80k a year. It's not the same thing as farms, which basically means being on food stamps. But its better than nothing; no other option school has income requirements for admission, so why are you picking on the one that does? It's not like montessori is some bastion of privilege like virtually all NA neighborhood elementaries.

Because when it moves and the program is disaggregated from the Drew neighborhood school, we will find that not only aren't you a Title 1 school, but you may not have any significant number of fr/l students, regardless of the 2/3 set aside. All the other option schools have VPI set-asides, which is the right thing to do in order to ensure low-income students have access to those opportunities. You don't have ANY set-aside for those students. NONE. You should have 1/3 for truly low income, especially for the kids who will live nearby in Gilliam Place and at The Wellington. You could get there by making the Pre-K years free for those whose families qualify for fr/l, and you could make up the difference by making another income bracket at the higher end of the sliding scale (doesn't it top out at like $200,000? That's pretty much every dual income household in North Arlington, so make another for $250,000 and another for $300,000 and up). I actually think the program is great and would benefit truly low-income kids, ESPECIALLY for Pre-K. Why can't we find a way to get them there as 3 year olds? That would be a very smart use of limited resources in closing the opportunity/achievement gap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen. Montessori should be serving more low income families or it should be eliminated.

Should ATS as well? Fun fact: no one who didn't attend aps montessori preschool got into Drew montessori this year. I'm not sure all the preschoolers got in, and they are first in line for admission. That means an income requirement is already baked into montessori admission. Aps montesorri preschool does have a 2/3 set aside for families making less than about 80k a year. It's not the same thing as farms, which basically means being on food stamps. But its better than nothing; no other option school has income requirements for admission, so why are you picking on the one that does? It's not like montessori is some bastion of privilege like virtually all NA neighborhood elementaries.

Anonymous wrote:Amen. Montessori should be serving more low income families or it should be eliminated.

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get why folks think that Spanish speaking immigrants really want their kids in immersion school. DH is Hispanic, his mom's first language was Spanish. She refused to teach her kids Spanish. Same with pretty much all of his family. They want to distance themselves from Spanish. That is the general attitude of many Hispanics I know and is bore out by studies.

http://theconversation.com/spanish-use-is-steady-or-dropping-in-us-despite-high-latino-immigration-85357

I am not speaking to other reasons for moving the school, but moving the school to an area with more Hispanics doesn't necessarily mean more Hispanics will automatically attend (assuming it remains a choice school).