LAMB lottery results

[Anonymous]

We got in last year and our waitlist number was in the mid-20's.

[Anonymous]

Three years ago (my son is now in K) they went into the 80s.

There is no longer any justification for not joining common lottery. Last year, maybe. This year, not at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We got in last year and our waitlist number was in the mid-20's.

Was that for prek 3 or 4?

[Anonymous]

The waitlist for PK4 didn't move at all last year because there were no spots in the initial lottery.

[Anonymous]

Whoa. The pk-3 wait list went into the 20s last year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Three years ago (my son is now in K) they went into the 80s.

There is no longer any justification for not joining common lottery. Last year, maybe. This year, not at all.

That year they opened the 2nd campus, so they had more spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Three years ago (my son is now in K) they went into the 80s.

There is no longer any justification for not joining common lottery. Last year, maybe. This year, not at all.

That year they opened the 2nd campus, so they had more spots.

If her son is in K, it was the year after they opened the 2nd campus. My 1st grade daughter entered at 3 the year they opened the 2nd campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We got in last year and our waitlist number was in the mid-20's.

Does anyone know how high the PK-3 wait list went last year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just double checked from the year our child entered LAMB and all names were listed then. Add this to the list of If This Is Going To Bother You, Please Apply Elsewhere.

Or maybe they should do the common lottery.

Perhaps. But that is up to them to decide. They see advantages in staying out. Again if this bothers you ...

I didn't apply to LAMB, I'm at another charter. No skin in this game except the improvement of the process. The problem is when there is an issue with one of us, or a concern, we all look bad.

It IS up to your admin (according to DCPCSB) to manage your own process. But, you owe it to the rest of us not to screw it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just double checked from the year our child entered LAMB and all names were listed then. Add this to the list of If This Is Going To Bother You, Please Apply Elsewhere.

Or maybe they should do the common lottery.

Perhaps. But that is up to them to decide. They see advantages in staying out. Again if this bothers you ...

I didn't apply to LAMB, I'm at another charter. No skin in this game except the improvement of the process. The problem is when there is an issue with one of us, or a concern, we all look bad.

It IS up to your admin (according to DCPCSB) to manage your own process. But, you owe it to the rest of us not to screw it up.

And who is alleging that they screwed it up - as in something against the law or regulations? None of the complaints about timeliness of posting results or whether or not names should have been posted rise to that level. LAMB has been doing this for 10 years and have never even had their hands slapped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just double checked from the year our child entered LAMB and all names were listed then. Add this to the list of If This Is Going To Bother You, Please Apply Elsewhere.

Or maybe they should do the common lottery.

Perhaps. But that is up to them to decide. They see advantages in staying out. Again if this bothers you ...

I didn't apply to LAMB, I'm at another charter. No skin in this game except the improvement of the process. The problem is when there is an issue with one of us, or a concern, we all look bad.

It IS up to your admin (according to DCPCSB) to manage your own process. But, you owe it to the rest of us not to screw it up.

And who is alleging that they screwed it up - as in something against the law or regulations? None of the complaints about timeliness of posting results or whether or not names should have been posted rise to that level. LAMB has been doing this for 10 years and have never even had their hands slapped.

You must be joking. LAMB used to illegally have a separate lottery for Spanish speakers.

[Anonymous]

I do see some discrepancies in the way twins were ranked/given the same or different number. How can that be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do see some discrepancies in the way twins were ranked/given the same or different number. How can that be?

Based on this threading looks like some are twins and some are siblings (one 3 and one 4).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just double checked from the year our child entered LAMB and all names were listed then. Add this to the list of If This Is Going To Bother You, Please Apply Elsewhere.

Or maybe they should do the common lottery.

Perhaps. But that is up to them to decide. They see advantages in staying out. Again if this bothers you ...

I didn't apply to LAMB, I'm at another charter. No skin in this game except the improvement of the process. The problem is when there is an issue with one of us, or a concern, we all look bad.

It IS up to your admin (according to DCPCSB) to manage your own process. But, you owe it to the rest of us not to screw it up.

I don't believe you for a second. There is nothing wrong with LAMB's process other than the fact that there are always too many people for too few spots. I totally get that. But I think you should be focusing your energies elsewhere, in a more positive way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just double checked from the year our child entered LAMB and all names were listed then. Add this to the list of If This Is Going To Bother You, Please Apply Elsewhere.

Or maybe they should do the common lottery.

Perhaps. But that is up to them to decide. They see advantages in staying out. Again if this bothers you ...

I didn't apply to LAMB, I'm at another charter. No skin in this game except the improvement of the process. The problem is when there is an issue with one of us, or a concern, we all look bad.

It IS up to your admin (according to DCPCSB) to manage your own process. But, you owe it to the rest of us not to screw it up.

I don't believe you for a second. There is nothing wrong with LAMB's process other than the fact that there are always too many people for too few spots. I totally get that. But I think you should be focusing your energies elsewhere, in a more positive way.

Tax dollars to run a school are not an entitlement. They come with scrutiny