LAMB lottery results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just called and they said everyone on the list posted over the weekend was wait listed. I thought people on DCUM said people who got in were on the list too but that is definitely not what I was told on the phone. I was also told that if people move over the summer they do not fill those spots with wait listed people (which seems crazy but that is a whole other topic).

They also to me that four pre-k 4 slots were available.

No. For PK3, the first 27 on the list got calls and were in. I just called and they said they are now to number 30 on that initial list.

I really hope you are right because that would make me first on pre-k 4 list.

I think that is right because I have a friend in mid-20s that got a "you are in" call on Friday.

confirmed - we were in the top 27 on the list that was posted and got a call that we were in.

Thanks. I guess guy who answered the phone was wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you involved in LAMB's lottery process? Can you vouch for the process? I'd love to hear more about the process they use if you are so confident that there are 100% no issues with it. Do they use a 3rd party computer system? Is it done in house? Can you tell us about the exact weighting system in order? Please provide the details so we can review it, since you are so certain about it.

I am assuming you went to the lottery which was open to the public this past Friday, since you have so many doubts. Sour grapes much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you involved in LAMB's lottery process? Can you vouch for the process? I'd love to hear more about the process they use if you are so confident that there are 100% no issues with it. Do they use a 3rd party computer system? Is it done in house? Can you tell us about the exact weighting system in order? Please provide the details so we can review it, since you are so certain about it.

I am assuming you went to the lottery which was open to the public this past Friday, since you have so many doubts. Sour grapes much?

LAMB does not participate in the city-wide Common Lottery. We will continue to make our lottery application available in-person at both of our facilities, online (here) starting on January 7th 2015. While we applaud the efforts taken in creating a common lottery system we are hesitant to join a system that has not yet been finalized. With a more cautious approach, LAMB hopes to avoid the uncertainty that comes with a work in progress. LAMB’s Lottery will be held March 20, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., at our South Dakota Avenue Facility located at 1800 Perry Street, NE, DC 20018 (corner of South Dakota Avenue and Perry Street)

[Anonymous]

My DD got #540 on the wait list! I'm not disappointed - we participated in their lottery just for the fun of it!

[Anonymous]

The common lottery is no longer a "work in progress." That explanation is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The common lottery is no longer a "work in progress." That explanation is absurd.

+1 I didnthear about any complaints with the process last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just called and they said everyone on the list posted over the weekend was wait listed. I thought people on DCUM said people who got in were on the list too but that is definitely not what I was told on the phone. I was also told that if people move over the summer they do not fill those spots with wait listed people (which seems crazy but that is a whole other topic).

They also to me that four pre-k 4 slots were available.

FYI, we were listed on that list, and we got a call from the school definitely saying that we were in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you involved in LAMB's lottery process? Can you vouch for the process? I'd love to hear more about the process they use if you are so confident that there are 100% no issues with it. Do they use a 3rd party computer system? Is it done in house? Can you tell us about the exact weighting system in order? Please provide the details so we can review it, since you are so certain about it.

I am assuming you went to the lottery which was open to the public this past Friday, since you have so many doubts. Sour grapes much?

I didn't apply to LAMB, believe it not...not every one wants Montessori.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The common lottery is no longer a "work in progress." That explanation is absurd.

+1 I didnthear about any complaints with the process last year.

+1 At some point, you have to start wondering why a school is holding out and it's pretty easy to think it has something to do with some part of their process that they don't want to give up (ability to show favoritism in some way, etc. ).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The common lottery is no longer a "work in progress." That explanation is absurd.

+1 I didnthear about any complaints with the process last year.

+1 At some point, you have to start wondering why a school is holding out and it's pretty easy to think it has something to do with some part of their process that they don't want to give up (ability to show favoritism in some way, etc. ).

I think LAMB should jump in too -- but there are other schools who have not joined. I believe LAMB's administration and Board have been concerned that lower-SES families who are eligible to apply may be less likely to apply to a centrally managed, predominantly online system. While LAMB does have an online application form they also accept paper forms and do a significant amount of outreach outside of the school fairs and open houses that most of us on this forum rely on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just called and they said everyone on the list posted over the weekend was wait listed. I thought people on DCUM said people who got in were on the list too but that is definitely not what I was told on the phone. I was also told that if people move over the summer they do not fill those spots with wait listed people (which seems crazy but that is a whole other topic).

They also to me that four pre-k 4 slots were available.

No. For PK3, the first 27 on the list got calls and were in. I just called and they said they are now to number 30 on that initial list.

ooh, congrats! what are the odds they get to the 500s?

[Anonymous]

My son was in the 180s for the prek waitlist, so no chance, but I appreciated that they used full names. It made it way easier to find him on the waitlist...

[Anonymous]

The irony is that LAMB is exactly the school that should be in the common lottery because it is so specific--how many people really want both dual language and Montessori for their kids? If they were in the common lottery, they'd be more likely to get people who really wanted the school, because it would get ranked. I applied to YY last year--and early too, to maximize my chance of getting in--but this year, when I had to really consider what I thought of it relative to my other schools, it didn't even make my list. I applied to LAMB again this year because it is a no-brainer as it is outside the common lottery, but if I had to rank it with other schools it also probably wouldn't make my list.

The common lottery people do a TON of outreach, including going door-to-door in ward 7, 8, and the poorer part of ward 1--to ensure that those of less means apply. So I really don't think that is an excuse. I agree with others that LAMB is just holding onto the process so they can have more control than they would have in the common lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The irony is that LAMB is exactly the school that should be in the common lottery because it is so specific--how many people really want both dual language and Montessori for their kids? If they were in the common lottery, they'd be more likely to get people who really wanted the school, because it would get ranked. I applied to YY last year--and early too, to maximize my chance of getting in--but this year, when I had to really consider what I thought of it relative to my other schools, it didn't even make my list. I applied to LAMB again this year because it is a no-brainer as it is outside the common lottery, but if I had to rank it with other schools it also probably wouldn't make my list.

The common lottery people do a TON of outreach, including going door-to-door in ward 7, 8, and the poorer part of ward 1--to ensure that those of less means apply. So I really don't think that is an excuse. I agree with others that LAMB is just holding onto the process so they can have more control than they would have in the common lottery.

Your question as to how many people want dual language Montessori is pretty easy- 542 or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After all the grief they'll certainly receive from how they handled this year's lottery, I certainly hope LAMB makes it easy on themselves and joins the centralized lottery next year. Listing full names is questionable (although, I don't personally mind that much) and only making the list of waitlisted famlies public is also questionable. They shouldn't be only partially transparent. If I was in the top five on the waitlist, I sure as heck would want to know/see the names ahead of mine and what sort of preference, if any, they had. I just think if you want people to trust the results you have to be transparent.

There is no preference other than sibling and staff. I doubt those names are anywhere on this list.