LAMB Public Lottery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAMB just crossed out through 59 on PK3. Zero cross-outs in PK4 or K. They must be backfilling all spots with PK3, which they can do with mixed age classrooms. Seems sketchy to me given that I believe their charter requires them to conduct a lottery that includes PK4 and K; maybe the fine print allows them to skirt around actually admitting any?

We're going into PK4 (second year) and I have also wondered this.

No charter schools are required to admit at every grade. LAMB agreed to conduct a lottery for those 3 grades backfill 'to the extent possible' (replacing a rising Pk4 vacancy with a new Pk4 student, etc). The question that no one here has insight into is how many (if any) rising Pk4 or rising K left. If LAMB is going to admit new students for those grades, they would only do so to the extent there are departures.

There are several other schools that run lotteries but never seem to admit people from older grades -- e.g. YY (admitted no one for K, 1 or 2 last year).

As someone toward the top of the PK4 WL, this is so hard to watch. I don't understand why they wouldn't take anyone.

LAMB is very constrained in their physical space right now. They had hoped to be in Kingsbury this year, but that has been postponed until next year. I doubt they are able to add another class as a result (but I don't know this for sure). In recent years, a large number of Pre K4 students were added because they opened an additional primary class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAMB just crossed out through 59 on PK3. Zero cross-outs in PK4 or K. They must be backfilling all spots with PK3, which they can do with mixed age classrooms. Seems sketchy to me given that I believe their charter requires them to conduct a lottery that includes PK4 and K; maybe the fine print allows them to skirt around actually admitting any?

We're going into PK4 (second year) and I have also wondered this.

No charter schools are required to admit at every grade. LAMB agreed to conduct a lottery for those 3 grades backfill 'to the extent possible' (replacing a rising Pk4 vacancy with a new Pk4 student, etc). The question that no one here has insight into is how many (if any) rising Pk4 or rising K left. If LAMB is going to admit new students for those grades, they would only do so to the extent there are departures.

There are several other schools that run lotteries but never seem to admit people from older grades -- e.g. YY (admitted no one for K, 1 or 2 last year).

As someone toward the top of the PK4 WL, this is so hard to watch. I don't understand why they wouldn't take anyone.

LAMB is very constrained in their physical space right now. They had hoped to be in Kingsbury this year, but that has been postponed until next year. I doubt they are able to add another class as a result (but I don't know this for sure). In recent years, a large number of Pre K4 students were added because they opened an additional primary class.

They can't add anymore classes without exceeding their approved enrollment cap, which takes into account the number of students as they age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAMB just crossed out through 59 on PK3. Zero cross-outs in PK4 or K. They must be backfilling all spots with PK3, which they can do with mixed age classrooms. Seems sketchy to me given that I believe their charter requires them to conduct a lottery that includes PK4 and K; maybe the fine print allows them to skirt around actually admitting any?

We're going into PK4 (second year) and I have also wondered this.

No charter schools are required to admit at every grade. LAMB agreed to conduct a lottery for those 3 grades backfill 'to the extent possible' (replacing a rising Pk4 vacancy with a new Pk4 student, etc). The question that no one here has insight into is how many (if any) rising Pk4 or rising K left. If LAMB is going to admit new students for those grades, they would only do so to the extent there are departures.

There are several other schools that run lotteries but never seem to admit people from older grades -- e.g. YY (admitted no one for K, 1 or 2 last year).

As someone toward the top of the PK4 WL, this is so hard to watch. I don't understand why they wouldn't take anyone.

Hopefully this link works. When LAMB last went to the PCSB for an enrollment ceiling change, they had to lay out how they anticipated enrollment to be for the next several years. See page 2 at this link http://www.livebinders.com/play/play?id=1980746#anchor

But I will paste the Pk3-k projections. They can deviate from this somewhat, but it illustrates a variance from year to year.

2016-17
PK3 80
pk4 74
k 80

17-18
pk3 72
pk4 80
k 74

18-19
pk3 72
pk4 72
k 80

19-20
pk3 80
pk4 72
k 72

[Anonymous]

Click on the link above -- then open the tab that says public hearing to get to the LAMB section.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for this info! While there is variation by year, it still looks like if there were attrition there would be spots because the number carry from one year to the next.

[Anonymous]

It looks like the Kingsbury move will happen for the next school year, which would allow for some growth. Not helpful for this year's lottery but for next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for this info! While there is variation by year, it still looks like if there were attrition there would be spots because the number carry from one year to the next.

Right, but they are not required to backfill them. The PCSB got a verbal commitment from Diane Cottman to do it to the "extent possible," but who knows what the interim ED feels she must do.

[Anonymous]

Has LAMB ever told parents which year its DCI feed is no longer guaranteed because of the 2016 enrollment ceiling increase?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for this info! While there is variation by year, it still looks like if there were attrition there would be spots because the number carry from one year to the next.

Right, but they are not required to backfill them. The PCSB got a verbal commitment from Diane Cottman to do it to the "extent possible," but who knows what the interim ED feels she must do.

I understand that they might not. I just don't understand this decision at all. Why give kids only one shot to get in? You lose at PK3 and....People on here talk all the time about how preschool is free and there is no guarantee. Got it. But why should it be the only entry point into many charters? It's just unfortunate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for this info! While there is variation by year, it still looks like if there were attrition there would be spots because the number carry from one year to the next.

Right, but they are not required to backfill them. The PCSB got a verbal commitment from Diane Cottman to do it to the "extent possible," but who knows what the interim ED feels she must do.

I understand that they might not. I just don't understand this decision at all. Why give kids only one shot to get in? You lose at PK3 and....People on here talk all the time about how preschool is free and there is no guarantee. Got it. But why should it be the only entry point into many charters? It's just unfortunate.

I don't agree with this, but the past administrator would have said that it is very hard for kids to adjust to both the dual language and the mixed age classrooms beyond a certain age, and that for that reason they take very limited numbers (or sometimes no) children past PK3. If you can find the video of their testimony over the years to the PCSB you can hear it firsthand.

It would help them financially to do it -- since the funds that they lose for a vacated at spot at LAMB won't be made up. They don't just take that many more 3 yos because that too is disruptive to the balance of Pk3, Pk4 and K in each classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for this info! While there is variation by year, it still looks like if there were attrition there would be spots because the number carry from one year to the next.

Right, but they are not required to backfill them. The PCSB got a verbal commitment from Diane Cottman to do it to the "extent possible," but who knows what the interim ED feels she must do.

I understand that they might not. I just don't understand this decision at all. Why give kids only one shot to get in? You lose at PK3 and....People on here talk all the time about how preschool is free and there is no guarantee. Got it. But why should it be the only entry point into many charters? It's just unfortunate.

I don't agree with this, but the past administrator would have said that it is very hard for kids to adjust to both the dual language and the mixed age classrooms beyond a certain age, and that for that reason they take very limited numbers (or sometimes no) children past PK3. If you can find the video of their testimony over the years to the PCSB you can hear it firsthand.

It would help them financially to do it -- since the funds that they lose for a vacated at spot at LAMB won't be made up. They don't just take that many more 3 yos because that too is disruptive to the balance of Pk3, Pk4 and K in each classroom.

Thanks for the explanation but I agree that seems pretty arbitrary, although I'm no expert. Depending on birthdates, a kid could fall on one side or the other of cutoffs by a matter of days or weeks. Makes more sense when kids are older, but not at 2-4 years old (some kids would be 2 when they start PK3).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for this info! While there is variation by year, it still looks like if there were attrition there would be spots because the number carry from one year to the next.

Right, but they are not required to backfill them. The PCSB got a verbal commitment from Diane Cottman to do it to the "extent possible," but who knows what the interim ED feels she must do.

I understand that they might not. I just don't understand this decision at all. Why give kids only one shot to get in? You lose at PK3 and....People on here talk all the time about how preschool is free and there is no guarantee. Got it. But why should it be the only entry point into many charters? It's just unfortunate.

I don't agree with this, but the past administrator would have said that it is very hard for kids to adjust to both the dual language and the mixed age classrooms beyond a certain age, and that for that reason they take very limited numbers (or sometimes no) children past PK3. If you can find the video of their testimony over the years to the PCSB you can hear it firsthand.

It would help them financially to do it -- since the funds that they lose for a vacated at spot at LAMB won't be made up. They don't just take that many more 3 yos because that too is disruptive to the balance of Pk3, Pk4 and K in each classroom.

Thanks for the explanation but I agree that seems pretty arbitrary, although I'm no expert. Depending on birthdates, a kid could fall on one side or the other of cutoffs by a matter of days or weeks. Makes more sense when kids are older, but not at 2-4 years old (some kids would be 2 when they start PK3).

The reason is also the Montessori approach. The kids learn a lot in PK3 and then in PK4 they "teach" the younger kids. That's the idea so ideally very little movement. I understand it's not set in stone but it makes sense to me. It's such a different kind of learning approach.

[Anonymous]

The problem is LAMB is a public charter school, and IMO the Montessori ideal needs to be adjusted to meet the needs of a city with few educational options.

Private Montessori schools can do as they wish, but allowing a school to operate at less than full capacity feels wrong to me. LAMB has chosen to not follow Montessori practices on other issues (computers, art and music teachers)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is LAMB is a public charter school, and IMO the Montessori ideal needs to be adjusted to meet the needs of a city with few educational options.

Private Montessori schools can do as they wish, but allowing a school to operate at less than full capacity feels wrong to me. LAMB has chosen to not follow Montessori practices on other issues (computers, art and music teachers)

I don't think it's actually operating at less than full capacity. It that shown somewhere?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is LAMB is a public charter school, and IMO the Montessori ideal needs to be adjusted to meet the needs of a city with few educational options.

Private Montessori schools can do as they wish, but allowing a school to operate at less than full capacity feels wrong to me. LAMB has chosen to not follow Montessori practices on other issues (computers, art and music teachers)

I don't think it's actually operating at less than full capacity. It that shown somewhere?

It is operating below its enrollment ceiling.

17-18 audited enrollment by grade

83/79/76/45/55/48/43/33 (total 462)

Ceiling for 17-18 by grade

72/80/74/52/58/51/49/42 (total 484)

So they enrolled 10 more ECE students in 2017-18 than their enrollment matrix projected (perhaps reflecting the commitment made to the PCSB to backfill at PK4 and K) but are still well below capacity.