LAMB closing its existing campuses and consolidating to one campus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, that's a little disappointing. I was hoping that we'd be able to move to the new campus starting in 2018. I wonder if there will be a lot of fighting over which kids get to move to the new campus. Maybe they'll just keep SD open for 6 additional years and sell MO, so the current SD students won't be displaced for quite a while.

Personally, I'd love that...

Lots of details to find out at the upcoming information sessions!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, that's a little disappointing. I was hoping that we'd be able to move to the new campus starting in 2018. I wonder if there will be a lot of fighting over which kids get to move to the new campus. Maybe they'll just keep SD open for 6 additional years and sell MO, so the current SD students won't be displaced for quite a while.

Personally, I'd love that...

Me too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Co-star has it listed for lease:

http://www.costar.com/costarconnect/MasterPage/Main.aspx?SiteId=22170&CheckSum=40715

Another lease is a disaster for families who live far away. People have suggested that displaced families simply move close to the school. If it's a lease, that's quite a gamble. (See: people who moved to be close to SD banking on LAMB at least staying through their lease ending in 2020).

The flyer at the link above does say it is available for purchase and the letter from the school indicated lease/purchase. I would imagine this means they would like to purchase. And if they get this space, this should meet all their needs for a very-long time for a consolidated school. In other words, I wouldn't worry about them moving anytime soon.

Lovely property! Will this have them pulling out of the LAMB at Walter Reed piece (not DcI just the lamb part)

Curious about this too. And wondering how much money they have wasted on Walter Reed if they're not even going to use it. Hopefully they can sell it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Co-star has it listed for lease:

http://www.costar.com/costarconnect/MasterPage/Main.aspx?SiteId=22170&CheckSum=40715

Another lease is a disaster for families who live far away. People have suggested that displaced families simply move close to the school. If it's a lease, that's quite a gamble. (See: people who moved to be close to SD banking on LAMB at least staying through their lease ending in 2020).

The flyer at the link above does say it is available for purchase and the letter from the school indicated lease/purchase. I would imagine this means they would like to purchase. And if they get this space, this should meet all their needs for a very-long time for a consolidated school. In other words, I wouldn't worry about them moving anytime soon.

Lovely property! Will this have them pulling out of the LAMB at Walter Reed piece (not DcI just the lamb part)

Curious about this too. And wondering how much money they have wasted on Walter Reed if they're not even going to use it. Hopefully they can sell it.

I believe they are actually now leasing that space from DCI, rather than purchasing it. That info was shared at the parent meeting earlier this year.

[Anonymous]

The Kingsbury certificate of occupancy has a ceiling of 300.

Since squeezing another 300 students in there seems unlikely, the grounds would have to be given up and the building enlarged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DC really cared about making the charter system "fair" for everyone, the DC government would provide busing options for all charter students. You can't blame LAMB for relocating in the ward where many current families live and the ward that has the highest Latino population in the city.

You CAN blame LAMB for refusing to explore busing students from other Wards though. That does make them seem exclusionary.

funny. former parent here who had a 30 minute commute to SD location. never once thought the school exclusionary because they weren't giving my kid a ride to school. it was my choice to attend that school, and stay there after the move to NE, therefore my responsibility to deal with the transport.

I agree with this sentiment. The school should engage in a discussion to see if it can help with bus issues, but that should not be an expectation. If anything, we need to pressure the DC govt to make that provision. Parents who are commuting to Lamb from the Hill or other far off distances, I am really impressed by your commitment. Even if bussing is provided and it makes the commute easier for you as parent, it is potentially a very long commute for your little one, esp. if we're talking PK-3 and PK-4. Sure, Lamb is great, but is it really worth it?

If lamb wants to pressure the DC government to do so, they should. But this is not what other schools do. They actually care about their students so they have shuttles that they subsidize and administer.

PP, I don't want to uproot my children from a school they know and love and a community they know and love. It is utterly disgraceful of you to imply that we should just leave. I am disgusted and unsurprised.

I hope all of you support parents of wards 5 6 7 and 8 in pressuring the school to have shuttle buses in place for our children.

I am confused by the mixed sentiments here - first implying that other schools actually care about their students, but lamb doesn't. And then indicating that lamb is a school and community your children know and love. I just don't understand the eagerness among those parents that are angry to jump to conclusions. First it was lamb doesn't care about families and won't tell us they are contemplating a move. Now that we know about a potential move more than a year in advance, in less than 48 hours the gripe is let's pressure the school about shuttles, they don't care about our children. Why can't everyone be patient and engage the school and have a conversation over the next year to help the administration make decisions that will be beneficial to all, instead of being so eager to fight the administration and assuming the worst. I don't think that is a good attitude to have long term for the benefit our the school our children know and love. At least give the school a chance - more than 48 hours to listen to and then attempt to address these issues.

This is an administration that concealed a child predator from families. I can see how people might be mistrustful.

Fine be mistrustful, but if you still want to stay with the school, then the path forward is to engage with the administration. There is no point staying with the school and then accusing the admin of wrongs at every turn without engaging in a meaningful dialogue.

ARE YOU FRIGGEN KIDDING ME?

Have you ever gotten a timely response from the principal? EVER?

I have called and emailed and called and emailed the school about so many issues through the years and 99% get no response until I literally involve lawyers.

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!

I frequently run into the ED and principal during pick up or drop off and they are always open to having a conversation. But the point is you hate the school admins, but yet you choose to stay with the school. Fine, that's your choice. If you want to fight the school at every turn and fight to replace the admin, go ahead good luck. You want to fight the school on buses and oppose the move, even before knowing when the SD campus is moving, then that's your choice. I don't know how you all can function with all this anger and hatred for the admins. I know if I hated the school admins as much as some of you do, I would not be staying there, just for my mental well-being.

[Anonymous]

Just a minor clarification - The YY bus routes are completely parent organized and funded.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure if your kid was sexually assaulted by a predator who the administrator protected you would be as angry and when specialists tell you that it's better for your sexually abused kid to stay in familiar environments you stay at the school and can justifiably hate the administration while you are there. Talk to me about feelings towards the administration after you experience that situation and then we can see how open to dialogue you are with people that lied to you for years while your kid was sexually abused while in their care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just a minor clarification - The YY bus routes are completely parent organized and funded.

Just a clarification on your clarification- the school administers it, assists with monitoring it (the bus monitor), and allows parents to pay YY instead of paying the buses directly.

It also assists in dropoff and pickup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure if your kid was sexually assaulted by a predator who the administrator protected you would be as angry and when specialists tell you that it's better for your sexually abused kid to stay in familiar environments you stay at the school and can justifiably hate the administration while you are there. Talk to me about feelings towards the administration after you experience that situation and then we can see how open to dialogue you are with people that lied to you for years while your kid was sexually abused while in their care.

I am sorry you are dealing with this experience. You are right, I don't know how difficult that would be and I have no idea how I would deal with such a situation. I am sure you are doing what is best for you and your family and apologies for any judgment.

[Anonymous]

The tone in this thread has been really disappointing. The administration has made many missteps in the last few years and have never held up to task. People are facing real challenges with this move, and frankly, the more we learn about this new campus the less it seems to make sense. I really am so saddened that instead of helping people with the move and advocating for those who need it, many parents are using this as an opportunity for name calling and judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Kingsbury certificate of occupancy has a ceiling of 300.

Since squeezing another 300 students in there seems unlikely, the grounds would have to be given up and the building enlarged.

This is NOT making sense to me. I get consolidating if you can move to a space that can accommodate everyone. Buying yet another building that isn't big enough, and using up a significant amount of green space -- which is a big part of what makes the site appealing -- to build an addition seems silly. The LAMB board should just keep looking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Kingsbury certificate of occupancy has a ceiling of 300.

Since squeezing another 300 students in there seems unlikely, the grounds would have to be given up and the building enlarged.

This is NOT making sense to me. I get consolidating if you can move to a space that can accommodate everyone. Buying yet another building that isn't big enough, and using up a significant amount of green space -- which is a big part of what makes the site appealing -- to build an addition seems silly. The LAMB board should just keep looking.

Perhaps there is a different capacity ceiling for special needs students, so the certificate of occupancy ceiling would be different for a school like LAMB? I doubt you will find many buildings of this size available many other places in the city for the board "to keep looking."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Kingsbury certificate of occupancy has a ceiling of 300.

Since squeezing another 300 students in there seems unlikely, the grounds would have to be given up and the building enlarged.

This is NOT making sense to me. I get consolidating if you can move to a space that can accommodate everyone. Buying yet another building that isn't big enough, and using up a significant amount of green space -- which is a big part of what makes the site appealing -- to build an addition seems silly. The LAMB board should just keep looking.

Perhaps there is a different capacity ceiling for special needs students, so the certificate of occupancy ceiling would be different for a school like LAMB? I doubt you will find many buildings of this size available many other places in the city for the board "to keep looking."

up more spaces?
Because kids with language disorders or autism take up more space? That makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Kingsbury certificate of occupancy has a ceiling of 300.

Since squeezing another 300 students in there seems unlikely, the grounds would have to be given up and the building enlarged.

This is NOT making sense to me. I get consolidating if you can move to a space that can accommodate everyone. Buying yet another building that isn't big enough, and using up a significant amount of green space -- which is a big part of what makes the site appealing -- to build an addition seems silly. The LAMB board should just keep looking.

Perhaps there is a different capacity ceiling for special needs students, so the certificate of occupancy ceiling would be different for a school like LAMB? I doubt you will find many buildings of this size available many other places in the city for the board "to keep looking."

up more spaces?
Because kids with language disorders or autism take up more space? That makes no sense.

Not the PP, but it also doesn't make sense that the building is set at 300 with that many classrooms. Perhaps that number can be appealed or they add a stairwell or something and it can be changed? I don't know, but if a montessori classroom has 30 kids, that's only 10 classrooms...