Montessori Long-Range Planning Committee

P..O. Box 22586, Kansas City, MO 64113 n Phone: 816-361-4455

July 1, 1999

Dr. Murphy, Academic Achievement Monitor

Desegregation Monitoring committee

1211 McGee Street, 8^th floor

Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Dear Dr. Murphy,

The Montessori Long Range Planning committee has received the KCMSD study on the demand and capacity of the Montessori program and the determination to include middle school grades in this program. We studied the KCMSD report and prepared the enclosed response.

The Montessori Long Range Planning Committee includes parent representatives from each of the KCMSD Montessori schools. Our knowledge of the program's history and our commitment to its future will provide the DMC additional information on the current state of Montessori public schools in Kansas City.

We respectfully request the Montessori professionals responsible for implementing any changes in the program be included in the planning process. We stand ready to assist you in any way.

Sincerely,

Rhonda Burnett

for the Committee

.

cc: Dr. Chase Mr. Arthur Benson

Ms. McKelvy Mr. Scott Raisher

Board of Directors Mr. Mike Delaney

Dr. McClain Dr. Eugene Eubanks

Montessori Long-Range Planning Committee

July 1, 1999

This memo is in response to a report by the KCMSD dated June 14, 1999 which states it was created to "determine if the Montessori program should continue to include the middle school grades." However, the scope of the report as ordered by the court was to include a study of whether Montessori programs should be offered beyond grade five. The parties and the DMC also recognize that the Montessori Program restricts student entrance after the kindergarten level and that, as a result, KCMSD's Montessori Program is detrimentally affected by student attrition. Accordingly, KCMSD agrees to perform, during the 1998-99 school year, additional analysis of Montessori capacity and demand. The analysis will be provided to the DMC.

From the beginning, the objective of the report was unclear. It is methodologically flawed, uses inaccurate data, and reaches unsupported conclusions. As a result of the shortcomings inherent in the report, the MLRPC contends that it should not serve as the basis for any decisions by the Court, the DMC, the Board of Education and the School Superintendent and administration.

The report's evaluation of the Middle School contains frequent errors and shows a lack of knowledge about the program and the method.

There is no comparison of the program to stated goals and objectives (e.g., program goals, district goals, etc.).

The report contains no empirical data relating to the Middle School including student outcomes (individual student growth, attendance, discipline), perception data and interviews from staff, parents, and students, lesson plans, or classroom observations.

The report provides no background data on the planning activities which provided the framework for the program. For example, it fails to take into account the successful Montessori middle schools which were used as models for the program as well as information and consultation received from acknowledged Montessori experts including Elizabeth Coe and David Kahn.

The report was not done by a trained evaluator, despite assurances by the administration that the District planned to use an independent Montessori expert. As a result it lacked many of the critical components expected in a program evaluation.

The report's analysis of the demand and capacity of the Montessori elementary program contains frequent errors and shows a lack of knowledge about proper planning techniques and the history of the program.

By not accurately defining the capacity of the schools, (the available seats in each primary level), the report fails to adequately determine if the program is operating at the highest capacity.

The report incorrectly concludes that demand for the program decreases as students progress through early childhood and into the elementary years based on a decline in number of applications between primary and 1^st grade.

This decline is more properly attributed to the admission restrictions being clearly printed on the application forms.

Mathematical errors also occur in this analysis.

The numbers of applicants and placements provided by the KCMSD Admissions office are not consistent with, or reflected in the report's enrollment projection tables.

e.g., Border Star did not place an additional 130 students last year. Faxon did not place an additional 34 Kindergartners.

The enrollment tables do not use the maximum number of primary seats available in each school for planning projections.

The report incorrectly states that each Montessori classroom has a paraprofessional. Only Childrens' Houses have a full-time paraprofessional and the lower elementary classrooms have a part-time paraprofessional.

The KCMSD does not require an academic screening for admission into the Montessori program as stated in the report. The screening assesses a child's oral language and the ability to follow a simple set of directions to determine if the child is ready for a classroom experience.

The report makes it appear that many applicants do not pass the screening, but presents no data to support this claim.

Attrition is calculated and compared incorrectly.

The five year attrition analysis was done on one grade level per school.

Attrition projections as provided in the enrollment tables is arbitrary.

The historical context of enrollment fluctuations was ignored. Elementary II was forced to reduce available primary classrooms from 10 to the current 7 because of inadequate and non permanent facilities. This appears as attrition.

No analysis of student withdrawals was provided.

It is inaccurate to compare schools who can enroll at any level with Montessori, which has admissions restrictions past grade one.

The report fails to identify why the program is not fully enrolled. The number of applicants clearly exceeds the number of available seats.

The Admissions office was not given permission to fully enroll Border Star's primary classrooms until the first week of June, 1999. In fact, Elementary II/ Border Star has been under-enrolled because of admission irregularities for several years.

In the 1998-99 school year, all three schools operated under-capacity because the Admissions office was unable to access the application files, or waiting list, and thereby unable to send prospective students to completely fill the primary classrooms.

Applications for the 1999-00 school year were not available until April, 1999, again delaying screening and placement.

The examples listed above are not intended to provide an exhaustive list, rather, they are intended to be illustrative of the problems inherent in the report. It is in light of these problems that the Montessori Long Range Planning Committee requests the following:

a methodologically sound evaluation be performed by a trained evaluator.

the KCMSD report of June 14, 1999 should not serve as the basis for any decisions by the Court, the DMC, the Board of Education and the School Superintendent and administration.

the Montessori professionals in the KCMSD should be involved in any planning or policy changes.

Our committee stands ready to assist in any way, and would welcome an opportunity to serve as a resource. Thank you for your consideration.

Rhonda Burnett - Edward Dobmeyer - Margaret Jonte - Dan Martin

Faxon Montessori - Holliday Montessori - Border Star Montessori

Montessori Long Range Planning Committee