LAMB closing its existing campuses and consolidating to one campus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As has been clearly explained, there are many good reasons to not share this information yet. In fact, it would be stupid to do so for those exact reasons.

That people are in a huff over this shows that some of the poor communication is more a case of parent entitlement.

A years lead is insufficient time. People bought and sold houses based on the location of lamb. Any mention of school sponsored buses is treated like evidence of treason. It's exhausting what parents are demanded to do on a regular basis. BreakthRough Montessori let's parents drop off students at the curb instead of parking in a sketchy neighborhood and walking them inside. Yu Ying and Mundo verde sponsor buses (Mundo even subsidizes them!). Lamb expects parents to arrive at work late or preferably, not work at all. Now we can't be trusted to know (1) that we are moving and (2) that the move is permanent and far away from the current schools. Straight up RIDICULOUS.

Not a LAMB parent, but you just sound straight-up entitled. I don't know how you went about buying your house, but I didn't begin the process for buying mine by telling every potential seller "Hey! I'm desperate to buy! Big time! Please don't allow my publicized and obvious desperation to affect your asking price, okay?!"

From what can be gleaned of the publicly available information, the school has always wanted one singular campus. They may not get what they want, but that they're working towards it and have an eye to the future isn't hidden from view. Obviously their board is going to be privy to information that parents don't have. Hello?! If the board doesn't have the information then who is ultimately responsible for the school? The PTA?

You don't seem to understand how completely unrealistic you come across.

Telling the school community that LAMB is exploring options to move to a single, new (non-existing) campus in the near future (~1-3 years) would be a fair and honest approach, imo. You can do that without saying "we're leasing the Kingsbury property for a 10 year term starting in May 2018 at a price of such and such per year" or whatever.

The rest of your post is confusing bordering on incoherent. Is it common knowledge that LAMB is seeking a single campus such that any Seller would know that (and also know that the lease at SD is up in 2020)? Or is the Board effectively keeping that info such a secret that they gain some kind of bargaining strength? Those two positions are mutually exclusive. Also, you buying a house is a bad analogy. The market for the kind of properties LAMB would be looking at is very small, and all of the potential Sellers, Buyers and even specific properties are known to all parties. Finally, if its true that LAMB is at a point where multiple employees are leaking that this deal is probable to close in time that they would open the 2018 school year there, then it is already far along in discussions and the Seller already knows exactly what LAMBs desired timeline is.

"Obviously their board is going to be privy to information that parents don't have." Yes, obviously, since that is what this whole thread is about. I don't think anyone is suggesting that they circulate the minutes of their board meetings or anything. But there is some information about medium-term strategic planning goals that a responsible and empathetic board should share with the community. Whether this info fits that description is hard to say.

The problem here is that your opinion is irrelevant to the decisions the board has to make. Confidentiality matters in negotiations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YY families didn't find out about the Taylor St. campus until the deal was done.

Rumors flew for years. Parents were angry and wanted more information than the school could give. Some families left. Ultimately, the facility acquisition happened. Most families stayed and many more new families applied.

(All of this was just a precursor to the DCI drama.)

Parents always want to know everything - that's natural. Charter schools in the acquisition stage need to hold back - that's sensible. These are competing desires - that's unavoidable.

My family was in a position to be flexible; hence my sanguine take. We had options and a few years to wait it out. If you're not able to be flexible, then maybe a situation that inherently demands flexibility isn't for you. Nobody but you knows that. Alas, your tight spot doesn't alter the larger picture. Getting irate over a strategic situation that's beyond the school's control is a waste of energy: the school can't do anything differently and now you're just angry.

If you need more certainty and security, then you can find that in the suburbs.

This is wise advice.

My kids' needs will always come before the needs of the school. That seems to be the suggestion here- yank your kids from the school or wake them up extra early and Ferry them across town. It's more important that the school have its needs met before those of my kids. That's not okay.

I don't get that. It's that there is going to be uncertainty for most charters -- and if you can't tolerate it, then you need to figure out something else. It's not a neighborhood school that will always be there. They are just different beasts.

+1.

Also, it's important to remember that while from your lens the needs of your own child always come first, from the school's lens, the long-term viability and health of the school are going to trump the needs of individual kids or even individual cohorts of kids. That's not to say families' needs don't matter--of course they do. But the school's view is necessarily long-range, and they have to look ahead to all of the classes that will follow. When you choose a school still in search of a long-term permanent location, you run the risk that the one they pick may not be as convenient for you as the current location, and at that point, you can decide whether to stay or go. Frankly, that's why we turned down a charter that we got into--we knew they were outgrowing their current location and were actively looking to move in a couple of years, and I didn't see many likely options in our immediate area, so chances were good that they would move farther away from us. We liked the school, but not enough to be in limbo for that time.

+1. Buying a house based on the location of a charter school is ridiculous. LAMB currently has 2 campuses, and as of next year it will be 3 campuses. That's a known fact. You start at MO or SD, but eventually will move to Walter Reed. And if you're sold on DCI, you'll be commuting to Walter Reed eventually anyway. As a soon to be LAMB parent, I am excited about the prospect of a single location because I personally feel having three different locations is a drawback. I'm not going to hold my breath that this is going to happen anytime soon, but it would be amazing to have the whole school under one roof and know it will stay that way for a while. Then you can move and buy your house based on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YY families didn't find out about the Taylor St. campus until the deal was done.

Rumors flew for years. Parents were angry and wanted more information than the school could give. Some families left. Ultimately, the facility acquisition happened. Most families stayed and many more new families applied.

(All of this was just a precursor to the DCI drama.)

Parents always want to know everything - that's natural. Charter schools in the acquisition stage need to hold back - that's sensible. These are competing desires - that's unavoidable.

My family was in a position to be flexible; hence my sanguine take. We had options and a few years to wait it out. If you're not able to be flexible, then maybe a situation that inherently demands flexibility isn't for you. Nobody but you knows that. Alas, your tight spot doesn't alter the larger picture. Getting irate over a strategic situation that's beyond the school's control is a waste of energy: the school can't do anything differently and now you're just angry.

If you need more certainty and security, then you can find that in the suburbs.

This is wise advice.

My kids' needs will always come before the needs of the school. That seems to be the suggestion here- yank your kids from the school or wake them up extra early and Ferry them across town. It's more important that the school have its needs met before those of my kids. That's not okay.

I don't get that. It's that there is going to be uncertainty for most charters -- and if you can't tolerate it, then you need to figure out something else. It's not a neighborhood school that will always be there. They are just different beasts.

+1.

Also, it's important to remember that while from your lens the needs of your own child always come first, from the school's lens, the long-term viability and health of the school are going to trump the needs of individual kids or even individual cohorts of kids. That's not to say families' needs don't matter--of course they do. But the school's view is necessarily long-range, and they have to look ahead to all of the classes that will follow. When you choose a school still in search of a long-term permanent location, you run the risk that the one they pick may not be as convenient for you as the current location, and at that point, you can decide whether to stay or go. Frankly, that's why we turned down a charter that we got into--we knew they were outgrowing their current location and were actively looking to move in a couple of years, and I didn't see many likely options in our immediate area, so chances were good that they would move farther away from us. We liked the school, but not enough to be in limbo for that time.

+1. Buying a house based on the location of a charter school is ridiculous. LAMB currently has 2 campuses, and as of next year it will be 3 campuses. That's a known fact. You start at MO or SD, but eventually will move to Walter Reed. And if you're sold on DCI, you'll be commuting to Walter Reed eventually anyway. As a soon to be LAMB parent, I am excited about the prospect of a single location because I personally feel having three different locations is a drawback. I'm not going to hold my breath that this is going to happen anytime soon, but it would be amazing to have the whole school under one roof and know it will stay that way for a while. Then you can move and buy your house based on that.

Oh, so we need to pour money down the drain renting because lamb is free to move their school around without any and all consequences? I'm supposed to put the needs of LAMB first before those of my family? Please. Please. Hold off on giving advice until your child turns four. Dumb.

By the way, your superior and ignorant attitude will not fit in. Prepare now to do the lottery. No one is dying for another smug monolingual family to join lamb.

[Anonymous]

Who buys a house near a Charter school who doesn't have a permanent home? Now that's just dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YY families didn't find out about the Taylor St. campus until the deal was done.

Rumors flew for years. Parents were angry and wanted more information than the school could give. Some families left. Ultimately, the facility acquisition happened. Most families stayed and many more new families applied.

(All of this was just a precursor to the DCI drama.)

Parents always want to know everything - that's natural. Charter schools in the acquisition stage need to hold back - that's sensible. These are competing desires - that's unavoidable.

My family was in a position to be flexible; hence my sanguine take. We had options and a few years to wait it out. If you're not able to be flexible, then maybe a situation that inherently demands flexibility isn't for you. Nobody but you knows that. Alas, your tight spot doesn't alter the larger picture. Getting irate over a strategic situation that's beyond the school's control is a waste of energy: the school can't do anything differently and now you're just angry.

If you need more certainty and security, then you can find that in the suburbs.

This is wise advice.

My kids' needs will always come before the needs of the school. That seems to be the suggestion here- yank your kids from the school or wake them up extra early and Ferry them across town. It's more important that the school have its needs met before those of my kids. That's not okay.

I don't get that. It's that there is going to be uncertainty for most charters -- and if you can't tolerate it, then you need to figure out something else. It's not a neighborhood school that will always be there. They are just different beasts.

+1.

Also, it's important to remember that while from your lens the needs of your own child always come first, from the school's lens, the long-term viability and health of the school are going to trump the needs of individual kids or even individual cohorts of kids. That's not to say families' needs don't matter--of course they do. But the school's view is necessarily long-range, and they have to look ahead to all of the classes that will follow. When you choose a school still in search of a long-term permanent location, you run the risk that the one they pick may not be as convenient for you as the current location, and at that point, you can decide whether to stay or go. Frankly, that's why we turned down a charter that we got into--we knew they were outgrowing their current location and were actively looking to move in a couple of years, and I didn't see many likely options in our immediate area, so chances were good that they would move farther away from us. We liked the school, but not enough to be in limbo for that time.

+1. Buying a house based on the location of a charter school is ridiculous. LAMB currently has 2 campuses, and as of next year it will be 3 campuses. That's a known fact. You start at MO or SD, but eventually will move to Walter Reed. And if you're sold on DCI, you'll be commuting to Walter Reed eventually anyway. As a soon to be LAMB parent, I am excited about the prospect of a single location because I personally feel having three different locations is a drawback. I'm not going to hold my breath that this is going to happen anytime soon, but it would be amazing to have the whole school under one roof and know it will stay that way for a while. Then you can move and buy your house based on that.

Says someone without any financial sense whatsoever. PP you sound unbelievably obnoxious. Best of luck for the future with that attitude. Additionally, the school told us that South Dakota would house all grades for quite some time, and that the lease was up in 2020. I do not think the decision to move grades 4/5 to Walter Reed is final. Finally, not all of us are planning on DCI.

(I really hope if LAMB does get a new campus, you end up driving for hours. Maybe it will make you reflect on your poor financial choices. Or maybe it will get you to move to the suburbs where I hear that attitude is welcome.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:YY families didn't find out about the Taylor St. campus until the deal was done.

Rumors flew for years. Parents were angry and wanted more information than the school could give. Some families left. Ultimately, the facility acquisition happened. Most families stayed and many more new families applied.

(All of this was just a precursor to the DCI drama.)

Parents always want to know everything - that's natural. Charter schools in the acquisition stage need to hold back - that's sensible. These are competing desires - that's unavoidable.

My family was in a position to be flexible; hence my sanguine take. We had options and a few years to wait it out. If you're not able to be flexible, then maybe a situation that inherently demands flexibility isn't for you. Nobody but you knows that. Alas, your tight spot doesn't alter the larger picture. Getting irate over a strategic situation that's beyond the school's control is a waste of energy: the school can't do anything differently and now you're just angry.

If you need more certainty and security, then you can find that in the suburbs.

So you are kicking out my kids because I don't think an hour drive in the morning is good for them? Funny, I think your entitled, smug attitude would be best served in suburbs. I am so tired of these entitled monolingual families with one kid in primary giving out life advice.

Can't wait until you corner me and see if I'll translate their letter to the listserv into Spanish (I don't do that btw).

[Anonymous]

LAMB changes its mind -- usually with an eye to the future but individual families can get burned by the decisions.

Examples:
Multiple location moves 2003-now.
Shifting of grades between campuses.
Splitting families between campuses.
Moving children from one community to another during a 3-year cycle

They believe what they tell you to be true or the plan when they say it, but those commitments to families don't prevent them from changing or evolving a year or so later. Know that and don't make financial decisions based on their current locations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YY families didn't find out about the Taylor St. campus until the deal was done.

Rumors flew for years. Parents were angry and wanted more information than the school could give. Some families left. Ultimately, the facility acquisition happened. Most families stayed and many more new families applied.

(All of this was just a precursor to the DCI drama.)

Parents always want to know everything - that's natural. Charter schools in the acquisition stage need to hold back - that's sensible. These are competing desires - that's unavoidable.

My family was in a position to be flexible; hence my sanguine take. We had options and a few years to wait it out. If you're not able to be flexible, then maybe a situation that inherently demands flexibility isn't for you. Nobody but you knows that. Alas, your tight spot doesn't alter the larger picture. Getting irate over a strategic situation that's beyond the school's control is a waste of energy: the school can't do anything differently and now you're just angry.

If you need more certainty and security, then you can find that in the suburbs.

So you are kicking out my kids because I don't think an hour drive in the morning is good for them? Funny, I think your entitled, smug attitude would be best served in suburbs. I am so tired of these entitled monolingual families with one kid in primary giving out life advice.

Can't wait until you corner me and see if I'll translate their letter to the listserv into Spanish (I don't do that btw).

Why would you assume we are entitled monolingual families? We're actually an entitled bilingual family.

[Anonymous]

So has anyone confirmed this rumor?

Or is this perhaps a result of people misunderstanding the decision announced last week to consolidate all 4th and 5th grade for 17-18 at Walter Reed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YY families didn't find out about the Taylor St. campus until the deal was done.

Rumors flew for years. Parents were angry and wanted more information than the school could give. Some families left. Ultimately, the facility acquisition happened. Most families stayed and many more new families applied.

(All of this was just a precursor to the DCI drama.)

Parents always want to know everything - that's natural. Charter schools in the acquisition stage need to hold back - that's sensible. These are competing desires - that's unavoidable.

My family was in a position to be flexible; hence my sanguine take. We had options and a few years to wait it out. If you're not able to be flexible, then maybe a situation that inherently demands flexibility isn't for you. Nobody but you knows that. Alas, your tight spot doesn't alter the larger picture. Getting irate over a strategic situation that's beyond the school's control is a waste of energy: the school can't do anything differently and now you're just angry.

If you need more certainty and security, then you can find that in the suburbs.

This is wise advice.

My kids' needs will always come before the needs of the school. That seems to be the suggestion here- yank your kids from the school or wake them up extra early and Ferry them across town. It's more important that the school have its needs met before those of my kids. That's not okay.

I don't get that. It's that there is going to be uncertainty for most charters -- and if you can't tolerate it, then you need to figure out something else. It's not a neighborhood school that will always be there. They are just different beasts.

+1.

Also, it's important to remember that while from your lens the needs of your own child always come first, from the school's lens, the long-term viability and health of the school are going to trump the needs of individual kids or even individual cohorts of kids. That's not to say families' needs don't matter--of course they do. But the school's view is necessarily long-range, and they have to look ahead to all of the classes that will follow. When you choose a school still in search of a long-term permanent location, you run the risk that the one they pick may not be as convenient for you as the current location, and at that point, you can decide whether to stay or go. Frankly, that's why we turned down a charter that we got into--we knew they were outgrowing their current location and were actively looking to move in a couple of years, and I didn't see many likely options in our immediate area, so chances were good that they would move farther away from us. We liked the school, but not enough to be in limbo for that time.

+1. Buying a house based on the location of a charter school is ridiculous. LAMB currently has 2 campuses, and as of next year it will be 3 campuses. That's a known fact. You start at MO or SD, but eventually will move to Walter Reed. And if you're sold on DCI, you'll be commuting to Walter Reed eventually anyway. As a soon to be LAMB parent, I am excited about the prospect of a single location because I personally feel having three different locations is a drawback. I'm not going to hold my breath that this is going to happen anytime soon, but it would be amazing to have the whole school under one roof and know it will stay that way for a while. Then you can move and buy your house based on that.

Says someone without any financial sense whatsoever. PP you sound unbelievably obnoxious. Best of luck for the future with that attitude. Additionally, the school told us that South Dakota would house all grades for quite some time, and that the lease was up in 2020. I do not think the decision to move grades 4/5 to Walter Reed is final. Finally, not all of us are planning on DCI.

(I really hope if LAMB does get a new campus, you end up driving for hours. Maybe it will make you reflect on your poor financial choices. Or maybe it will get you to move to the suburbs where I hear that attitude is welcome.)

I really hope all LAMB parents aren't as petty as you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YY families didn't find out about the Taylor St. campus until the deal was done.

Rumors flew for years. Parents were angry and wanted more information than the school could give. Some families left. Ultimately, the facility acquisition happened. Most families stayed and many more new families applied.

(All of this was just a precursor to the DCI drama.)

Parents always want to know everything - that's natural. Charter schools in the acquisition stage need to hold back - that's sensible. These are competing desires - that's unavoidable.

My family was in a position to be flexible; hence my sanguine take. We had options and a few years to wait it out. If you're not able to be flexible, then maybe a situation that inherently demands flexibility isn't for you. Nobody but you knows that. Alas, your tight spot doesn't alter the larger picture. Getting irate over a strategic situation that's beyond the school's control is a waste of energy: the school can't do anything differently and now you're just angry.

If you need more certainty and security, then you can find that in the suburbs.

This is wise advice.

My kids' needs will always come before the needs of the school. That seems to be the suggestion here- yank your kids from the school or wake them up extra early and Ferry them across town. It's more important that the school have its needs met before those of my kids. That's not okay.

I don't get that. It's that there is going to be uncertainty for most charters -- and if you can't tolerate it, then you need to figure out something else. It's not a neighborhood school that will always be there. They are just different beasts.

+1.

Also, it's important to remember that while from your lens the needs of your own child always come first, from the school's lens, the long-term viability and health of the school are going to trump the needs of individual kids or even individual cohorts of kids. That's not to say families' needs don't matter--of course they do. But the school's view is necessarily long-range, and they have to look ahead to all of the classes that will follow. When you choose a school still in search of a long-term permanent location, you run the risk that the one they pick may not be as convenient for you as the current location, and at that point, you can decide whether to stay or go. Frankly, that's why we turned down a charter that we got into--we knew they were outgrowing their current location and were actively looking to move in a couple of years, and I didn't see many likely options in our immediate area, so chances were good that they would move farther away from us. We liked the school, but not enough to be in limbo for that time.

+1. Buying a house based on the location of a charter school is ridiculous. LAMB currently has 2 campuses, and as of next year it will be 3 campuses. That's a known fact. You start at MO or SD, but eventually will move to Walter Reed. And if you're sold on DCI, you'll be commuting to Walter Reed eventually anyway. As a soon to be LAMB parent, I am excited about the prospect of a single location because I personally feel having three different locations is a drawback. I'm not going to hold my breath that this is going to happen anytime soon, but it would be amazing to have the whole school under one roof and know it will stay that way for a while. Then you can move and buy your house based on that.

Says someone without any financial sense whatsoever. PP you sound unbelievably obnoxious. Best of luck for the future with that attitude. Additionally, the school told us that South Dakota would house all grades for quite some time, and that the lease was up in 2020. I do not think the decision to move grades 4/5 to Walter Reed is final. Finally, not all of us are planning on DCI.

(I really hope if LAMB does get a new campus, you end up driving for hours. Maybe it will make you reflect on your poor financial choices. Or maybe it will get you to move to the suburbs where I hear that attitude is welcome.)

How sad for your family that this is how you focus your hopes and dreams. What a petty mommy you are.

[Anonymous]

Trying to bring this thread back from all the pettiness.

We are a new LAMB family who doesn't know much of what's going on. So, all 4-5th graders are moving to WR for 17-18 year? Then, are they hoping to combine the following year into one campus?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trying to bring this thread back from all the pettiness.

We are a new LAMB family who doesn't know much of what's going on. So, all 4-5th graders are moving to WR for 17-18 year? Then, are they hoping to combine the following year into one campus?

Yes all 4th and 5th graders are moving to WR starting in 17-18. Current families were told this in school newsletter last week. Families who live near SD are concerned, especially those with younger siblings who would stay at SD. But assuming those kids were going to DCI, this just moves things up a couple years.

The notion of one combined campus has been a dream of the LAMB Board and administrators going back at least 10 years. But no one has been told whether it is any closer to materializing now than it ever was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trying to bring this thread back from all the pettiness.

We are a new LAMB family who doesn't know much of what's going on. So, all 4-5th graders are moving to WR for 17-18 year? Then, are they hoping to combine the following year into one campus?

Yes all 4th and 5th graders are moving to WR starting in 17-18. Current families were told this in school newsletter last week. Families who live near SD are concerned, especially those with younger siblings who would stay at SD. But assuming those kids were going to DCI, this just moves things up a couple years.

The notion of one combined campus has been a dream of the LAMB Board and administrators going back at least 10 years. But no one has been told whether it is any closer to materializing now than it ever was.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YY families didn't find out about the Taylor St. campus until the deal was done.

Rumors flew for years. Parents were angry and wanted more information than the school could give. Some families left. Ultimately, the facility acquisition happened. Most families stayed and many more new families applied.

(All of this was just a precursor to the DCI drama.)

Parents always want to know everything - that's natural. Charter schools in the acquisition stage need to hold back - that's sensible. These are competing desires - that's unavoidable.

My family was in a position to be flexible; hence my sanguine take. We had options and a few years to wait it out. If you're not able to be flexible, then maybe a situation that inherently demands flexibility isn't for you. Nobody but you knows that. Alas, your tight spot doesn't alter the larger picture. Getting irate over a strategic situation that's beyond the school's control is a waste of energy: the school can't do anything differently and now you're just angry.

If you need more certainty and security, then you can find that in the suburbs.

This is wise advice.

My kids' needs will always come before the needs of the school. That seems to be the suggestion here- yank your kids from the school or wake them up extra early and Ferry them across town. It's more important that the school have its needs met before those of my kids. That's not okay.

I don't get that. It's that there is going to be uncertainty for most charters -- and if you can't tolerate it, then you need to figure out something else. It's not a neighborhood school that will always be there. They are just different beasts.

+1.

Also, it's important to remember that while from your lens the needs of your own child always come first, from the school's lens, the long-term viability and health of the school are going to trump the needs of individual kids or even individual cohorts of kids. That's not to say families' needs don't matter--of course they do. But the school's view is necessarily long-range, and they have to look ahead to all of the classes that will follow. When you choose a school still in search of a long-term permanent location, you run the risk that the one they pick may not be as convenient for you as the current location, and at that point, you can decide whether to stay or go. Frankly, that's why we turned down a charter that we got into--we knew they were outgrowing their current location and were actively looking to move in a couple of years, and I didn't see many likely options in our immediate area, so chances were good that they would move farther away from us. We liked the school, but not enough to be in limbo for that time.

+1. Buying a house based on the location of a charter school is ridiculous. LAMB currently has 2 campuses, and as of next year it will be 3 campuses. That's a known fact. You start at MO or SD, but eventually will move to Walter Reed. And if you're sold on DCI, you'll be commuting to Walter Reed eventually anyway. As a soon to be LAMB parent, I am excited about the prospect of a single location because I personally feel having three different locations is a drawback. I'm not going to hold my breath that this is going to happen anytime soon, but it would be amazing to have the whole school under one roof and know it will stay that way for a while. Then you can move and buy your house based on that.

Says someone without any financial sense whatsoever. PP you sound unbelievably obnoxious. Best of luck for the future with that attitude. Additionally, the school told us that South Dakota would house all grades for quite some time, and that the lease was up in 2020. I do not think the decision to move grades 4/5 to Walter Reed is final. Finally, not all of us are planning on DCI.

(I really hope if LAMB does get a new campus, you end up driving for hours. Maybe it will make you reflect on your poor financial choices. Or maybe it will get you to move to the suburbs where I hear that attitude is welcome.)

I really hope all LAMB parents aren't as petty as you.

What a trashy response, petty PP.