LAMB closing its existing campuses and consolidating to one campus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if LAMB had found a new location by St. Elizabeth Hospital in Anacostia. I bet the sentiment on this board would be all reversed.... There's also been faint speculation over the years that LAMB might just lease more space at SD and eventually consolidate everyone over there. Certainly many in Ward 4 would be outraged, and maybe justifiably so!

The point is that there seems to be this unexamined chauvinism by some that LAMB is somehow really a "Ward 4" neighborhood school and everyone else has to just deal with it. LAMB went city-wide a long time ago. My guess is that Kingsbury probably will be the best option at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean that students from other parts of the city don't have legitimate concerns.

Not trying to fan further flames here, just asking for a little more mutual understanding.

Actually no. A number of parents at MO have discussed what we do if our kids were assigned to SD at some point bc once that campus opened it became clear the school might have to adjust who goes where bc of capacity/balancing etc. We agreed we'd explore a way to organize a car pool and research a bus if possible. What we didn't do was make demands the administration accommodate us when they're focused on building this school.

Also, my closest friends at LAMB are from BOTH campuses and I often forget who's where bc we live in different wards and it's not actually an exact link of ward to closest school. People in our group cross the city every day to get their kids to the campus they're assigned to.

My last note is we enrolled in LAMB at AD even though it was a 45 minute commute. I was willing to make that sacrifice so my kids could be at LAMB.

Glad that this works out for your family. It doesn't work out for all families to make those arrangements.

But maybe you can stop lying online? Because the "facts" you posted are bold faced lies.

If the school moves to another campus which is suitable for only some families, they have an obligation to explore ways of keeping those families, and not just those who can afford the time and money to bring them there. The shuttle bus to SD has been in the works for some time, has been entirely parent run, and up until this misguided Kingsbury move, has not requested anything of the school. If the school moves to Kingsbury, the school should find a way to help these families continue at lamb. This has been done by other schools as mentioned before. I guess you want to make sure it is only the rich kids who get to lamb.

The hatred and vitriol and LIES that have been posted here are just disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourselves. Cowards.

Wrong. The school has no obligation to help families with transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if LAMB had found a new location by St. Elizabeth Hospital in Anacostia. I bet the sentiment on this board would be all reversed.... There's also been faint speculation over the years that LAMB might just lease more space at SD and eventually consolidate everyone over there. Certainly many in Ward 4 would be outraged, and maybe justifiably so!

The point is that there seems to be this unexamined chauvinism by some that LAMB is somehow really a "Ward 4" neighborhood school and everyone else has to just deal with it. LAMB went city-wide a long time ago. My guess is that Kingsbury probably will be the best option at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean that students from other parts of the city don't have legitimate concerns.

Not trying to fan further flames here, just asking for a little more mutual understanding.

Actually no. A number of parents at MO have discussed what we do if our kids were assigned to SD at some point bc once that campus opened it became clear the school might have to adjust who goes where bc of capacity/balancing etc. We agreed we'd explore a way to organize a car pool and research a bus if possible. What we didn't do was make demands the administration accommodate us when they're focused on building this school.

Also, my closest friends at LAMB are from BOTH campuses and I often forget who's where bc we live in different wards and it's not actually an exact link of ward to closest school. People in our group cross the city every day to get their kids to the campus they're assigned to.

My last note is we enrolled in LAMB at AD even though it was a 45 minute commute. I was willing to make that sacrifice so my kids could be at LAMB.

Glad that this works out for your family. It doesn't work out for all families to make those arrangements.

But maybe you can stop lying online? Because the "facts" you posted are bold faced lies.

If the school moves to another campus which is suitable for only some families, they have an obligation to explore ways of keeping those families, and not just those who can afford the time and money to bring them there. The shuttle bus to SD has been in the works for some time, has been entirely parent run, and up until this misguided Kingsbury move, has not requested anything of the school. If the school moves to Kingsbury, the school should find a way to help these families continue at lamb. This has been done by other schools as mentioned before. I guess you want to make sure it is only the rich kids who get to lamb.

The hatred and vitriol and LIES that have been posted here are just disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourselves. Cowards.

Wrong. The school has no obligation to help families with transportation.

Reading comprehension fail. No one said anything about buses. However, they have an obligation to explore ways to keep these families. Buses can be one way, but not the only way.

The school has obligations to the families who send their children. They can't just throw up their hands and say "he was out friend! We had no idea he was a molestor even though someone told us he was alone with children in the basement!!" "If you really love lamb, you'll make it work somehow!!!"

This is the same toxic mentality that is destroying the school. The school has obligations to everyone who sends their kids there. Those obligations mean letting us know when they might move (not just a select group). That means not insulting people who dare ask them for accountability. That means exploring ways to keep those who can't make the move to another campus. That mentality has to go.

And for those who have told their stories of a terrible commute, while I admire your commitment, you always knew it was a temporary move. And you were told this. We are now being told this is a permanent move. And long term traveling an hour plus each way is not possible for most people. This is why many schools bus students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They talked about the River Terrace school and Young Campus as options at the Kingsbury meetings. I think that they were seriously considering a move east of the river. To be totally fair to the administration. But the attitude of the meeting was very much against anyone they perceived as a "gentrifier". Diane even made some crack about how "we didn't expect DC to gentrify so quickly".

However from the beginning there were "gentrifier" families interested in the school. Not sure why the attitude seems so against people they perceive to be recent arrivals to DC.

The problem is when people arrived but the wealth. Diane and Cristina founded an elementary school in hopes of serving the kinds of children they worked with as teens at LAYC. But that would allow them to catch them earlier and give them a high quality education in hopes of preventing some of the issues those teens faced. They wanted to reach poor, underserved kids. Middle and upper middle class families of all races and ethnicities were never their target audience although they've been there since year one.

It sounds like it might be time for Diane and Cristina to move on. Leaving aside the pedophile scandal, they have obvious animosity toward gentrifiers and because of the way HRCS work (middle and upper middle class people lottery for them in huge numbers), LAMB will just continue to be whiter and wealthier. Seems like it's time to turn the reins over to people who don't have obvious distain for those people.

I think these types of conclusions cannot be drawn based on random bits and pieces of statements you hear here. They don't have animosity towards gentrifiers. Someone at the meeting from ward 7 or 8 commented about how they'd like to move closer to the school but for them it was a question of affordability and they can't afford housing near Kingsbury or SD. To this remark Christina and Diane said that their focus had always been Ward 4 where there was a large hispanic population which would help with implementing the bilingual model. But the city has changed on them and city is becoming more wealthy. I don't think they used word gentrifiers or expressed animosity. There were just saying that it was not their intent to locate in an expensive part of city and their mission was to provide good quality public education for low income families who it was not always accessible. That is what I took from it. I don't take it as animosity towards gentrifiers, but a desire to make good quality education accessible to all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They talked about the River Terrace school and Young Campus as options at the Kingsbury meetings. I think that they were seriously considering a move east of the river. To be totally fair to the administration. But the attitude of the meeting was very much against anyone they perceived as a "gentrifier". Diane even made some crack about how "we didn't expect DC to gentrify so quickly".

However from the beginning there were "gentrifier" families interested in the school. Not sure why the attitude seems so against people they perceive to be recent arrivals to DC.

The problem is when people arrived but the wealth. Diane and Cristina founded an elementary school in hopes of serving the kinds of children they worked with as teens at LAYC. But that would allow them to catch them earlier and give them a high quality education in hopes of preventing some of the issues those teens faced. They wanted to reach poor, underserved kids. Middle and upper middle class families of all races and ethnicities were never their target audience although they've been there since year one.

It sounds like it might be time for Diane and Cristina to move on. Leaving aside the pedophile scandal, they have obvious animosity toward gentrifiers and because of the way HRCS work (middle and upper middle class people lottery for them in huge numbers), LAMB will just continue to be whiter and wealthier. Seems like it's time to turn the reins over to people who don't have obvious distain for those people.

I think these types of conclusions cannot be drawn based on random bits and pieces of statements you hear here. They don't have animosity towards gentrifiers. Someone at the meeting from ward 7 or 8 commented about how they'd like to move closer to the school but for them it was a question of affordability and they can't afford housing near Kingsbury or SD. To this remark Christina and Diane said that their focus had always been Ward 4 where there was a large hispanic population which would help with implementing the bilingual model. But the city has changed on them and city is becoming more wealthy. I don't think they used word gentrifiers or expressed animosity. There were just saying that it was not their intent to locate in an expensive part of city and their mission was to provide good quality public education for low income families who it was not always accessible. That is what I took from it. I don't take it as animosity towards gentrifiers, but a desire to make good quality education accessible to all.

I was there and the animosity came across. They said they were "tricked" by the city gentrifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They talked about the River Terrace school and Young Campus as options at the Kingsbury meetings. I think that they were seriously considering a move east of the river. To be totally fair to the administration. But the attitude of the meeting was very much against anyone they perceived as a "gentrifier". Diane even made some crack about how "we didn't expect DC to gentrify so quickly".

However from the beginning there were "gentrifier" families interested in the school. Not sure why the attitude seems so against people they perceive to be recent arrivals to DC.

The problem is when people arrived but the wealth. Diane and Cristina founded an elementary school in hopes of serving the kinds of children they worked with as teens at LAYC. But that would allow them to catch them earlier and give them a high quality education in hopes of preventing some of the issues those teens faced. They wanted to reach poor, underserved kids. Middle and upper middle class families of all races and ethnicities were never their target audience although they've been there since year one.

It sounds like it might be time for Diane and Cristina to move on. Leaving aside the pedophile scandal, they have obvious animosity toward gentrifiers and because of the way HRCS work (middle and upper middle class people lottery for them in huge numbers), LAMB will just continue to be whiter and wealthier. Seems like it's time to turn the reins over to people who don't have obvious distain for those people.

I think these types of conclusions cannot be drawn based on random bits and pieces of statements you hear here. They don't have animosity towards gentrifiers. Someone at the meeting from ward 7 or 8 commented about how they'd like to move closer to the school but for them it was a question of affordability and they can't afford housing near Kingsbury or SD. To this remark Christina and Diane said that their focus had always been Ward 4 where there was a large hispanic population which would help with implementing the bilingual model. But the city has changed on them and city is becoming more wealthy. I don't think they used word gentrifiers or expressed animosity. There were just saying that it was not their intent to locate in an expensive part of city and their mission was to provide good quality public education for low income families who it was not always accessible. That is what I took from it. I don't take it as animosity towards gentrifiers, but a desire to make good quality education accessible to all.

I was there and the animosity came across. They said they were "tricked" by the city gentrifying.

I don't consider using the words tricked by the city gentrifying the same as expressing animosity about it. I think we all were tricked by it, I don't think anyone who lives in the city today expected 15 years ago that it would develop as much as it has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They talked about the River Terrace school and Young Campus as options at the Kingsbury meetings. I think that they were seriously considering a move east of the river. To be totally fair to the administration. But the attitude of the meeting was very much against anyone they perceived as a "gentrifier". Diane even made some crack about how "we didn't expect DC to gentrify so quickly".

However from the beginning there were "gentrifier" families interested in the school. Not sure why the attitude seems so against people they perceive to be recent arrivals to DC.

The problem is when people arrived but the wealth. Diane and Cristina founded an elementary school in hopes of serving the kinds of children they worked with as teens at LAYC. But that would allow them to catch them earlier and give them a high quality education in hopes of preventing some of the issues those teens faced. They wanted to reach poor, underserved kids. Middle and upper middle class families of all races and ethnicities were never their target audience although they've been there since year one.

It sounds like it might be time for Diane and Cristina to move on. Leaving aside the pedophile scandal, they have obvious animosity toward gentrifiers and because of the way HRCS work (middle and upper middle class people lottery for them in huge numbers), LAMB will just continue to be whiter and wealthier. Seems like it's time to turn the reins over to people who don't have obvious distain for those people.

I think these types of conclusions cannot be drawn based on random bits and pieces of statements you hear here. They don't have animosity towards gentrifiers. Someone at the meeting from ward 7 or 8 commented about how they'd like to move closer to the school but for them it was a question of affordability and they can't afford housing near Kingsbury or SD. To this remark Christina and Diane said that their focus had always been Ward 4 where there was a large hispanic population which would help with implementing the bilingual model. But the city has changed on them and city is becoming more wealthy. I don't think they used word gentrifiers or expressed animosity. There were just saying that it was not their intent to locate in an expensive part of city and their mission was to provide good quality public education for low income families who it was not always accessible. That is what I took from it. I don't take it as animosity towards gentrifiers, but a desire to make good quality education accessible to all.

I was there and the animosity came across. They said they were "tricked" by the city gentrifying.

I don't consider using the words tricked by the city gentrifying the same as expressing animosity about it. I think we all were tricked by it, I don't think anyone who lives in the city today expected 15 years ago that it would develop as much as it has.

And again I'm not sure they used the word gentrifying at all, but I could be wrong. I thought it was tricked by how expensive the city has become.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if LAMB had found a new location by St. Elizabeth Hospital in Anacostia. I bet the sentiment on this board would be all reversed.... There's also been faint speculation over the years that LAMB might just lease more space at SD and eventually consolidate everyone over there. Certainly many in Ward 4 would be outraged, and maybe justifiably so!

The point is that there seems to be this unexamined chauvinism by some that LAMB is somehow really a "Ward 4" neighborhood school and everyone else has to just deal with it. LAMB went city-wide a long time ago. My guess is that Kingsbury probably will be the best option at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean that students from other parts of the city don't have legitimate concerns.

Not trying to fan further flames here, just asking for a little more mutual understanding.

Actually no. A number of parents at MO have discussed what we do if our kids were assigned to SD at some point bc once that campus opened it became clear the school might have to adjust who goes where bc of capacity/balancing etc. We agreed we'd explore a way to organize a car pool and research a bus if possible. What we didn't do was make demands the administration accommodate us when they're focused on building this school.

Also, my closest friends at LAMB are from BOTH campuses and I often forget who's where bc we live in different wards and it's not actually an exact link of ward to closest school. People in our group cross the city every day to get their kids to the campus they're assigned to.

My last note is we enrolled in LAMB at AD even though it was a 45 minute commute. I was willing to make that sacrifice so my kids could be at LAMB.

Glad that this works out for your family. It doesn't work out for all families to make those arrangements.

But maybe you can stop lying online? Because the "facts" you posted are bold faced lies.

If the school moves to another campus which is suitable for only some families, they have an obligation to explore ways of keeping those families, and not just those who can afford the time and money to bring them there. The shuttle bus to SD has been in the works for some time, has been entirely parent run, and up until this misguided Kingsbury move, has not requested anything of the school. If the school moves to Kingsbury, the school should find a way to help these families continue at lamb. This has been done by other schools as mentioned before. I guess you want to make sure it is only the rich kids who get to lamb.

The hatred and vitriol and LIES that have been posted here are just disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourselves. Cowards.

Wrong. The school has no obligation to help families with transportation.

Reading comprehension fail. No one said anything about buses. However, they have an obligation to explore ways to keep these families. Buses can be one way, but not the only way.

The school has obligations to the families who send their children. They can't just throw up their hands and say "he was out friend! We had no idea he was a molestor even though someone told us he was alone with children in the basement!!" "If you really love lamb, you'll make it work somehow!!!"

This is the same toxic mentality that is destroying the school. The school has obligations to everyone who sends their kids there. Those obligations mean letting us know when they might move (not just a select group). That means not insulting people who dare ask them for accountability. That means exploring ways to keep those who can't make the move to another campus. That mentality has to go.

And for those who have told their stories of a terrible commute, while I admire your commitment, you always knew it was a temporary move. And you were told this. We are now being told this is a permanent move. And long term traveling an hour plus each way is not possible for most people. This is why many schools bus students.

You're conflating issues and actually the previous poster was correct - the school has no obligation to address your commute. If you need an easier commute enroll in your local public school. There are others in the city, in all wards, that would be willing to make the commute work to attend LAMB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They talked about the River Terrace school and Young Campus as options at the Kingsbury meetings. I think that they were seriously considering a move east of the river. To be totally fair to the administration. But the attitude of the meeting was very much against anyone they perceived as a "gentrifier". Diane even made some crack about how "we didn't expect DC to gentrify so quickly".

However from the beginning there were "gentrifier" families interested in the school. Not sure why the attitude seems so against people they perceive to be recent arrivals to DC.

The problem is when people arrived but the wealth. Diane and Cristina founded an elementary school in hopes of serving the kinds of children they worked with as teens at LAYC. But that would allow them to catch them earlier and give them a high quality education in hopes of preventing some of the issues those teens faced. They wanted to reach poor, underserved kids. Middle and upper middle class families of all races and ethnicities were never their target audience although they've been there since year one.

It sounds like it might be time for Diane and Cristina to move on. Leaving aside the pedophile scandal, they have obvious animosity toward gentrifiers and because of the way HRCS work (middle and upper middle class people lottery for them in huge numbers), LAMB will just continue to be whiter and wealthier. Seems like it's time to turn the reins over to people who don't have obvious distain for those people.

I think these types of conclusions cannot be drawn based on random bits and pieces of statements you hear here. They don't have animosity towards gentrifiers. Someone at the meeting from ward 7 or 8 commented about how they'd like to move closer to the school but for them it was a question of affordability and they can't afford housing near Kingsbury or SD. To this remark Christina and Diane said that their focus had always been Ward 4 where there was a large hispanic population which would help with implementing the bilingual model. But the city has changed on them and city is becoming more wealthy. I don't think they used word gentrifiers or expressed animosity. There were just saying that it was not their intent to locate in an expensive part of city and their mission was to provide good quality public education for low income families who it was not always accessible. That is what I took from it. I don't take it as animosity towards gentrifiers, but a desire to make good quality education accessible to all.

I was there and the animosity came across. They said they were "tricked" by the city gentrifying.

I don't consider using the words tricked by the city gentrifying the same as expressing animosity about it. I think we all were tricked by it, I don't think anyone who lives in the city today expected 15 years ago that it would develop as much as it has.

And again I'm not sure they used the word gentrifying at all, but I could be wrong. I thought it was tricked by how expensive the city has become.

They did use that word. And it's reflected in the notes: "the city tricked us with such rapid gentrification."

[Anonymous]

Diane also thought the ideal size for LAMB was 6 total classrooms. 3 primary, 2 elementary, 1 upper elementary.

Seriously. That was the plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Diane also thought the ideal size for LAMB was 6 total classrooms. 3 primary, 2 elementary, 1 upper elementary.

Seriously. That was the plan.

Yes she told me once when I was discussing school locations with her (a number of years ago so not Kingsbiry) and whether they would keep SD when WR opened that she didn't want LAMB to get to big but they felt they had an obligation to supply as many quality seats as thy could. I imagine they think about this balance in many decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They talked about the River Terrace school and Young Campus as options at the Kingsbury meetings. I think that they were seriously considering a move east of the river. To be totally fair to the administration. But the attitude of the meeting was very much against anyone they perceived as a "gentrifier". Diane even made some crack about how "we didn't expect DC to gentrify so quickly".

However from the beginning there were "gentrifier" families interested in the school. Not sure why the attitude seems so against people they perceive to be recent arrivals to DC.

The problem is when people arrived but the wealth. Diane and Cristina founded an elementary school in hopes of serving the kinds of children they worked with as teens at LAYC. But that would allow them to catch them earlier and give them a high quality education in hopes of preventing some of the issues those teens faced. They wanted to reach poor, underserved kids. Middle and upper middle class families of all races and ethnicities were never their target audience although they've been there since year one.

It sounds like it might be time for Diane and Cristina to move on. Leaving aside the pedophile scandal, they have obvious animosity toward gentrifiers and because of the way HRCS work (middle and upper middle class people lottery for them in huge numbers), LAMB will just continue to be whiter and wealthier. Seems like it's time to turn the reins over to people who don't have obvious distain for those people.

I think these types of conclusions cannot be drawn based on random bits and pieces of statements you hear here. They don't have animosity towards gentrifiers. Someone at the meeting from ward 7 or 8 commented about how they'd like to move closer to the school but for them it was a question of affordability and they can't afford housing near Kingsbury or SD. To this remark Christina and Diane said that their focus had always been Ward 4 where there was a large hispanic population which would help with implementing the bilingual model. But the city has changed on them and city is becoming more wealthy. I don't think they used word gentrifiers or expressed animosity. There were just saying that it was not their intent to locate in an expensive part of city and their mission was to provide good quality public education for low income families who it was not always accessible. That is what I took from it. I don't take it as animosity towards gentrifiers, but a desire to make good quality education accessible to all.

I was there and the animosity came across. They said they were "tricked" by the city gentrifying.

I don't consider using the words tricked by the city gentrifying the same as expressing animosity about it. I think we all were tricked by it, I don't think anyone who lives in the city today expected 15 years ago that it would develop as much as it has.

And again I'm not sure they used the word gentrifying at all, but I could be wrong. I thought it was tricked by how expensive the city has become.

You are wrong. As a white parent, I definitely took notice when Christina spoke disdainfully about "gentrifiers" moving into Ward 4. That was blatantly racist. If a white administrator complained about blacks moving into certain neighborhoods, they would be crucified, and rightly so. No race owns any neighborhoods. Christina is terrible and needs to go. To jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They talked about the River Terrace school and Young Campus as options at the Kingsbury meetings. I think that they were seriously considering a move east of the river. To be totally fair to the administration. But the attitude of the meeting was very much against anyone they perceived as a "gentrifier". Diane even made some crack about how "we didn't expect DC to gentrify so quickly".

However from the beginning there were "gentrifier" families interested in the school. Not sure why the attitude seems so against people they perceive to be recent arrivals to DC.

The problem is when people arrived but the wealth. Diane and Cristina founded an elementary school in hopes of serving the kinds of children they worked with as teens at LAYC. But that would allow them to catch them earlier and give them a high quality education in hopes of preventing some of the issues those teens faced. They wanted to reach poor, underserved kids. Middle and upper middle class families of all races and ethnicities were never their target audience although they've been there since year one.

It sounds like it might be time for Diane and Cristina to move on. Leaving aside the pedophile scandal, they have obvious animosity toward gentrifiers and because of the way HRCS work (middle and upper middle class people lottery for them in huge numbers), LAMB will just continue to be whiter and wealthier. Seems like it's time to turn the reins over to people who don't have obvious distain for those people.

I think these types of conclusions cannot be drawn based on random bits and pieces of statements you hear here. They don't have animosity towards gentrifiers. Someone at the meeting from ward 7 or 8 commented about how they'd like to move closer to the school but for them it was a question of affordability and they can't afford housing near Kingsbury or SD. To this remark Christina and Diane said that their focus had always been Ward 4 where there was a large hispanic population which would help with implementing the bilingual model. But the city has changed on them and city is becoming more wealthy. I don't think they used word gentrifiers or expressed animosity. There were just saying that it was not their intent to locate in an expensive part of city and their mission was to provide good quality public education for low income families who it was not always accessible. That is what I took from it. I don't take it as animosity towards gentrifiers, but a desire to make good quality education accessible to all.

I was there and the animosity came across. They said they were "tricked" by the city gentrifying.

I don't consider using the words tricked by the city gentrifying the same as expressing animosity about it. I think we all were tricked by it, I don't think anyone who lives in the city today expected 15 years ago that it would develop as much as it has.

And again I'm not sure they used the word gentrifying at all, but I could be wrong. I thought it was tricked by how expensive the city has become.

You are wrong. As a white parent, I definitely took notice when Christina spoke disdainfully about "gentrifiers" moving into Ward 4. That was blatantly racist. If a white administrator complained about blacks moving into certain neighborhoods, they would be crucified, and rightly so. No race owns any neighborhoods. Christina is terrible and needs to go. To jail.

So, are you leaving the school?

[Anonymous]

Different poster- Cristina and Diane aren't dictators. They don't get to exclude particular groups just because they don't like them or don't want to focus on them. I'm not white so I don't know how Cristina is towards white people. What I do agree with is that some people in the lamb comminity are hostile to those they perceive to be gentrifiers.

And I really think we need to stop the "my way or the highway" approach. People are allowed to disagree and it is reprehensible to kick out students when their parents indicate they're not feeling welcome. That's gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Different poster- Cristina and Diane aren't dictators. They don't get to exclude particular groups just because they don't like them or don't want to focus on them. I'm not white so I don't know how Cristina is towards white people. What I do agree with is that some people in the lamb comminity are hostile to those they perceive to be gentrifiers.

And I really think we need to stop the "my way or the highway" approach. People are allowed to disagree and it is reprehensible to kick out students when their parents indicate they're not feeling welcome. That's gross.

How exactly are they excluding or kicking out students?

[Anonymous]

Okay, this thread has now jumped the shark!