LAMB Enrollment Increase

[Anonymous]

Is it really going to take them until Friday to post results online?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Augment, as in be a part of it. With the same rules that apply. Not with a special set of rules just to make it easier.

Augment, as in supplement. The rules are not to make it easier; they are to make it possible to fulfill the mission of the charter.

I thought part of the awesome thing about charter schools was that they could experiment with ways to help DCPS improve itself. So the LAMB answer is: exclude students from joining in the later grades... genius.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, you only have to wait 3 days for LAMB results! Who is getting excited/nervous?
Is LAMB your first choice or are there MSDC schools you prefer?

There is no reason LAMB should not be in the common lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you only have to wait 3 days for LAMB results! Who is getting excited/nervous?
Is LAMB your first choice or are there MSDC schools you prefer?

There is no reason LAMB should not be in the common lottery.

They cannot be forced to join.

Clearly they are impervious to peer pressure. So until and unless their application and enrollment numbers start to decline due to their decision, I think they will continue to go it alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it really going to take them until Friday to post results online?

"No later than." Meaning could be sooner. They have to do the same sort of validation that MSDC takes a month to do on a smaller scale with respect to confirming sibling preference and so forth.

If you are that curious you can attend the lottery in person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent at another immersion charter that does not adequately limit enrollment in later grades, I heartily support LAMB limiting enrollment past PK4.

My daughter has had a lost year for second grade this year, in large part because at least two kids were added to the classroom with no background in the language. These kids also had limited discipline and respect for teachers. The result is that both the new kids, and the other twenty some kids in the class have made basically no academic progress this year. Teacher time has been completely directed to their disruptive behavior. Other kids in her class who were barely hanging in there have made a turn for the worse in both behavior and use of the target language. At many times immersion went by the way side as the teachers worked to simply get control of the classroom. At least two teachers quit mid year.

My kid will be fine. I supplement at home and have hired a math tutor. But most of the other kids in her class do not have parents with those resources. Those kids just lost a year of their education.

If you are angry that your kid didn't get into LAMB, lobby for more ECE seats that are immersion, don't ruin LAMB. If your kid is too old, lobby for more schools like Creative Minds, that have extensive language exposure, don't waste your energy on trying to ruin LAMB or other immersion charters that limit enrollment. I really really wish our immersion charter limited enrollment. I will give it one more year, and if third grade isn't any better, we will have to turn to alternative options and not wait around for DCI.

Again, we have the resources to find alternative options, but a good portion of my daughter's class have parents without as much access to alternatives. The school's handling of enrollment of kids without a background in the target language could have major implications in terms of a large number of kids' ability to perform on grade level.

I understand frustration that your kid doesn't make it in to your dream school. I have that same frustration. But that is no reason to ruin the experience for others, especially kids for whom this educational experience could be their ticket out of poverty.

Any school can experience a second grader with behavior issues. Why should a language school be exempt from accepting these kids? If they can't adequately support a kid with behavior issues they shouldn't be in the public school business. You suggest dumping these kids at CMI and IT so you can stack your deck? No. Not gonna happen.

Because the mission of charter schools is to provide a specialized, alternative educational offering. They are meant to augment the existing public school system, not replace it.

So it's ok for other specialized charters that provide specialized educational offerings to accept older kids but not language? I don't think so hypocrite.

BASIS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent at another immersion charter that does not adequately limit enrollment in later grades, I heartily support LAMB limiting enrollment past PK4.

My daughter has had a lost year for second grade this year, in large part because at least two kids were added to the classroom with no background in the language. These kids also had limited discipline and respect for teachers. The result is that both the new kids, and the other twenty some kids in the class have made basically no academic progress this year. Teacher time has been completely directed to their disruptive behavior. Other kids in her class who were barely hanging in there have made a turn for the worse in both behavior and use of the target language. At many times immersion went by the way side as the teachers worked to simply get control of the classroom. At least two teachers quit mid year.

My kid will be fine. I supplement at home and have hired a math tutor. But most of the other kids in her class do not have parents with those resources. Those kids just lost a year of their education.

If you are angry that your kid didn't get into LAMB, lobby for more ECE seats that are immersion, don't ruin LAMB. If your kid is too old, lobby for more schools like Creative Minds, that have extensive language exposure, don't waste your energy on trying to ruin LAMB or other immersion charters that limit enrollment. I really really wish our immersion charter limited enrollment. I will give it one more year, and if third grade isn't any better, we will have to turn to alternative options and not wait around for DCI.

Again, we have the resources to find alternative options, but a good portion of my daughter's class have parents without as much access to alternatives. The school's handling of enrollment of kids without a background in the target language could have major implications in terms of a large number of kids' ability to perform on grade level.

I understand frustration that your kid doesn't make it in to your dream school. I have that same frustration. But that is no reason to ruin the experience for others, especially kids for whom this educational experience could be their ticket out of poverty.

Any school can experience a second grader with behavior issues. Why should a language school be exempt from accepting these kids? If they can't adequately support a kid with behavior issues they shouldn't be in the public school business. You suggest dumping these kids at CMI and IT so you can stack your deck? No. Not gonna happen.

Because the mission of charter schools is to provide a specialized, alternative educational offering. They are meant to augment the existing public school system, not replace it.

So it's ok for other specialized charters that provide specialized educational offerings to accept older kids but not language? I don't think so hypocrite.

BASIS

Also Washington Latin (not after 9th).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent at another immersion charter that does not adequately limit enrollment in later grades, I heartily support LAMB limiting enrollment past PK4.

My daughter has had a lost year for second grade this year, in large part because at least two kids were added to the classroom with no background in the language. These kids also had limited discipline and respect for teachers. The result is that both the new kids, and the other twenty some kids in the class have made basically no academic progress this year. Teacher time has been completely directed to their disruptive behavior. Other kids in her class who were barely hanging in there have made a turn for the worse in both behavior and use of the target language. At many times immersion went by the way side as the teachers worked to simply get control of the classroom. At least two teachers quit mid year.

My kid will be fine. I supplement at home and have hired a math tutor. But most of the other kids in her class do not have parents with those resources. Those kids just lost a year of their education.

If you are angry that your kid didn't get into LAMB, lobby for more ECE seats that are immersion, don't ruin LAMB. If your kid is too old, lobby for more schools like Creative Minds, that have extensive language exposure, don't waste your energy on trying to ruin LAMB or other immersion charters that limit enrollment. I really really wish our immersion charter limited enrollment. I will give it one more year, and if third grade isn't any better, we will have to turn to alternative options and not wait around for DCI.

Again, we have the resources to find alternative options, but a good portion of my daughter's class have parents without as much access to alternatives. The school's handling of enrollment of kids without a background in the target language could have major implications in terms of a large number of kids' ability to perform on grade level.

I understand frustration that your kid doesn't make it in to your dream school. I have that same frustration. But that is no reason to ruin the experience for others, especially kids for whom this educational experience could be their ticket out of poverty.

Any school can experience a second grader with behavior issues. Why should a language school be exempt from accepting these kids? If they can't adequately support a kid with behavior issues they shouldn't be in the public school business. You suggest dumping these kids at CMI and IT so you can stack your deck? No. Not gonna happen.

Because the mission of charter schools is to provide a specialized, alternative educational offering. They are meant to augment the existing public school system, not replace it.

So it's ok for other specialized charters that provide specialized educational offerings to accept older kids but not language? I don't think so hypocrite.

BASIS

Also Washington Latin (not after 9th).

And several DCPS schools - I take issue with this policy at all of them

[Anonymous]

+1

[Anonymous]

You guys who want a "one size fits all policy" are stating so because your child did not get into your desired program through the lottery. I understand the frustration and the pain, but the solution is not to have charters with different mission statements (and the obligation to provide a high quality education to its attendees) accept children who would be under-served. Not to mention the children who would be disrupted by an inappropriate placement simply because "one size (or rules) fits all". Let's admit if there were enough quality seats to go around, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is more a conversation about the scarcity of resources and conflating that with language immersions and their "elite" nature in not taking students at all grades. Fix neighborhood schools please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys who want a "one size fits all policy" are stating so because your child did not get into your desired program through the lottery. I understand the frustration and the pain, but the solution is not to have charters with different mission statements (and the obligation to provide a high quality education to its attendees) accept children who would be under-served. Not to mention the children who would be disrupted by an inappropriate placement simply because "one size (or rules) fits all". Let's admit if there were enough quality seats to go around, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is more a conversation about the scarcity of resources and conflating that with language immersions and their "elite" nature in not taking students at all grades. Fix neighborhood schools please.

I'd be OK with providing more resources to neighborhood schools than schools with special exclusivity rules, but that conversation would never go anywhere with Charter boosters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys who want a "one size fits all policy" are stating so because your child did not get into your desired program through the lottery. I understand the frustration and the pain, but the solution is not to have charters with different mission statements (and the obligation to provide a high quality education to its attendees) accept children who would be under-served. Not to mention the children who would be disrupted by an inappropriate placement simply because "one size (or rules) fits all". Let's admit if there were enough quality seats to go around, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is more a conversation about the scarcity of resources and conflating that with language immersions and their "elite" nature in not taking students at all grades. Fix neighborhood schools please.

I'd be OK with providing more resources to neighborhood schools than schools with special exclusivity rules, but that conversation would never go anywhere with Charter boosters.

That already happens in DC. See Focus lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Augment, as in be a part of it. With the same rules that apply. Not with a special set of rules just to make it easier.

Augment, as in supplement. The rules are not to make it easier; they are to make it possible to fulfill the mission of the charter.

I thought part of the awesome thing about charter schools was that they could experiment with ways to help DCPS improve itself. So the LAMB answer is: exclude students from joining in the later grades... genius.

The word "experiment" and a child's education do not belong in the same sentence. You may be sick enough to be okay experimenting with your child's education, but most sane parents are not. Thank goodness the school system sides with sane parents. Just sorry for your kids!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys who want a "one size fits all policy" are stating so because your child did not get into your desired program through the lottery. I understand the frustration and the pain, but the solution is not to have charters with different mission statements (and the obligation to provide a high quality education to its attendees) accept children who would be under-served. Not to mention the children who would be disrupted by an inappropriate placement simply because "one size (or rules) fits all". Let's admit if there were enough quality seats to go around, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is more a conversation about the scarcity of resources and conflating that with language immersions and their "elite" nature in not taking students at all grades. Fix neighborhood schools please.

I'd be OK with providing more resources to neighborhood schools than schools with special exclusivity rules, but that conversation would never go anywhere with Charter boosters.

That already happens in DC. See Focus lawsuit.

This. Charters are given less monies per pupil than DCPS. Please reference the lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Augment, as in be a part of it. With the same rules that apply. Not with a special set of rules just to make it easier.

Augment, as in supplement. The rules are not to make it easier; they are to make it possible to fulfill the mission of the charter.

I thought part of the awesome thing about charter schools was that they could experiment with ways to help DCPS improve itself. So the LAMB answer is: exclude students from joining in the later grades... genius.

The word "experiment" and a child's education do not belong in the same sentence. You may be sick enough to be okay experimenting with your child's education, but most sane parents are not. Thank goodness the school system sides with sane parents. Just sorry for your kids!

Thanks for your concern, but that's one reason my kids don't go to a charter school.

Enjoy your experiments.