2016 LAMB lottery results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It probably doesn't hinder outreach. But LAMB is convinced that it's approach gives them the best shot at a diverse applicant pool. Maybe they don't want people to have to rank LAMB in preference order against the of their choices?

We can all form an opinion about their approach but it is their choice. And with 800 applicants it doesn't seem to be hurting them.

Yes but with their past (yes, I know first hand when my Spanish speaking friend got in and had a number 200 worse than me), they should not be allowed this luxury. It should have been required by the charter board.

Blah blah blah. Stop whining, open a new charter school if you do actually care about kids and bilingual ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It probably doesn't hinder outreach. But LAMB is convinced that it's approach gives them the best shot at a diverse applicant pool. Maybe they don't want people to have to rank LAMB in preference order against the of their choices?

We can all form an opinion about their approach but it is their choice. And with 800 applicants it doesn't seem to be hurting them.

Yes but with their past (yes, I know first hand when my Spanish speaking friend got in and had a number 200 worse than me), they should not be allowed this luxury. It should have been required by the charter board.

How long ago? Been a few years since they did the Oyster-style dual lottery. And once they were told to stop they did.

Doesn't matter. They should not be allowed to hold their own lottery. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It probably doesn't hinder outreach. But LAMB is convinced that it's approach gives them the best shot at a diverse applicant pool. Maybe they don't want people to have to rank LAMB in preference order against the of their choices?

We can all form an opinion about their approach but it is their choice. And with 800 applicants it doesn't seem to be hurting them.

Yes but with their past (yes, I know first hand when my Spanish speaking friend got in and had a number 200 worse than me), they should not be allowed this luxury. It should have been required by the charter board.

How long ago? Been a few years since they did the Oyster-style dual lottery. And once they were told to stop they did.

Doesn't matter. They should not be allowed to hold their own lottery. Period.

Then please share your thoughts with OSSE and the DCPCSB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It probably doesn't hinder outreach. But LAMB is convinced that it's approach gives them the best shot at a diverse applicant pool. Maybe they don't want people to have to rank LAMB in preference order against the of their choices?

We can all form an opinion about their approach but it is their choice. And with 800 applicants it doesn't seem to be hurting them.

Yes but with their past (yes, I know first hand when my Spanish speaking friend got in and had a number 200 worse than me), they should not be allowed this luxury. It should have been required by the charter board.

How long ago? Been a few years since they did the Oyster-style dual lottery. And once they were told to stop they did.

Doesn't matter. They should not be allowed to hold their own lottery. Period.

Then please share your thoughts with OSSE and the DCPCSB.

And feel free to stop sharing them on here. Your point has been made and no one cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It probably doesn't hinder outreach. But LAMB is convinced that it's approach gives them the best shot at a diverse applicant pool. Maybe they don't want people to have to rank LAMB in preference order against the of their choices?

We can all form an opinion about their approach but it is their choice. And with 800 applicants it doesn't seem to be hurting them.

Yes but with their past (yes, I know first hand when my Spanish speaking friend got in and had a number 200 worse than me), they should not be allowed this luxury. It should have been required by the charter board.

I love it when non-Latinos complain about how Latinos get all the perks. Give me a break. LAMB does not give any preference of any kind to Spanish-speakers. I know, I asked. Actually, if I'm honest, I begged. And they did not budge, did not take my name down, and were perfectly kind. But they made it clear this did not happen, regardless of what an "esteemed lottery consultant" claimed really happened behind the scenes.

For what it's worth, I am happy for LAMB that your Spanish-speaking friend got in. You seem like an entitled jerk. And Latinos in this city get nothing - at least we should be able to send our kids to schools where they can continue learning our language and sharing that knowledge with other kids. Unfortunately we don't even get that aside from a handful of seats at Oyster-Adams and a few other DCPS schools. I guess I can hope for the best from one of them, even though it isn't likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It probably doesn't hinder outreach. But LAMB is convinced that it's approach gives them the best shot at a diverse applicant pool. Maybe they don't want people to have to rank LAMB in preference order against the of their choices?

We can all form an opinion about their approach but it is their choice. And with 800 applicants it doesn't seem to be hurting them.

Yes but with their past (yes, I know first hand when my Spanish speaking friend got in and had a number 200 worse than me), they should not be allowed this luxury. It should have been required by the charter board.

Blah blah blah. Stop whining, open a new charter school if you do actually care about kids and bilingual ed.

So you hear about them breaking the law and your response is "too bad for you open your own chatter?" No that's not how it works, LAMB is a public charter and is obligated to follow the law. They should have repercussions for what they did. Fwiw we are at a very good school that we wouldn't leave for the world, and we didn't have to open a school to get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It probably doesn't hinder outreach. But LAMB is convinced that it's approach gives them the best shot at a diverse applicant pool. Maybe they don't want people to have to rank LAMB in preference order against the of their choices?

We can all form an opinion about their approach but it is their choice. And with 800 applicants it doesn't seem to be hurting them.

Yes but with their past (yes, I know first hand when my Spanish speaking friend got in and had a number 200 worse than me), they should not be allowed this luxury. It should have been required by the charter board.

Blah blah blah. Stop whining, open a new charter school if you do actually care about kids and bilingual ed.

So you hear about them breaking the law and your response is "too bad for you open your own chatter?" No that's not how it works, LAMB is a public charter and is obligated to follow the law. They should have repercussions for what they did. Fwiw we are at a very good school that we wouldn't leave for the world, and we didn't have to open a school to get it.

The point is that THEY ARE NOT BREAKING THE LAW. But by lying about that... YOU are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It probably doesn't hinder outreach. But LAMB is convinced that it's approach gives them the best shot at a diverse applicant pool. Maybe they don't want people to have to rank LAMB in preference order against the of their choices?

We can all form an opinion about their approach but it is their choice. And with 800 applicants it doesn't seem to be hurting them.

Yes but with their past (yes, I know first hand when my Spanish speaking friend got in and had a number 200 worse than me), they should not be allowed this luxury. It should have been required by the charter board.

Blah blah blah. Stop whining, open a new charter school if you do actually care about kids and bilingual ed.

So you hear about them breaking the law and your response is "too bad for you open your own chatter?" No that's not how it works, LAMB is a public charter and is obligated to follow the law. They should have repercussions for what they did. Fwiw we are at a very good school that we wouldn't leave for the world, and we didn't have to open a school to get it.

We all know there are very strong feelings about LAMB not being in the common lottery, but I would like to get this thread back on track to the original purpose - has anyone had a call yet being offered a spot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It probably doesn't hinder outreach. But LAMB is convinced that it's approach gives them the best shot at a diverse applicant pool. Maybe they don't want people to have to rank LAMB in preference order against the of their choices?

We can all form an opinion about their approach but it is their choice. And with 800 applicants it doesn't seem to be hurting them.

Yes but with their past (yes, I know first hand when my Spanish speaking friend got in and had a number 200 worse than me), they should not be allowed this luxury. It should have been required by the charter board.

Blah blah blah. Stop whining, open a new charter school if you do actually care about kids and bilingual ed.

So you hear about them breaking the law and your response is "too bad for you open your own chatter?" No that's not how it works, LAMB is a public charter and is obligated to follow the law. They should have repercussions for what they did. Fwiw we are at a very good school that we wouldn't leave for the world, and we didn't have to open a school to get it.

We all know there are very strong feelings about LAMB not being in the common lottery, but I would like to get this thread back on track to the original purpose - has anyone had a call yet being offered a spot?

Not here. I've been refreshing their website in the hopes that it will be posted on their website. At the very least this is keeping my mind busy so I don't check the news going on in Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It probably doesn't hinder outreach. But LAMB is convinced that it's approach gives them the best shot at a diverse applicant pool. Maybe they don't want people to have to rank LAMB in preference order against the of their choices?

We can all form an opinion about their approach but it is their choice. And with 800 applicants it doesn't seem to be hurting them.

Yes but with their past (yes, I know first hand when my Spanish speaking friend got in and had a number 200 worse than me), they should not be allowed this luxury. It should have been required by the charter board.

I love it when non-Latinos complain about how Latinos get all the perks. Give me a break. LAMB does not give any preference of any kind to Spanish-speakers. I know, I asked. Actually, if I'm honest, I begged. And they did not budge, did not take my name down, and were perfectly kind. But they made it clear this did not happen, regardless of what an "esteemed lottery consultant" claimed really happened behind the scenes.

For what it's worth, I am happy for LAMB that your Spanish-speaking friend got in. You seem like an entitled jerk. And Latinos in this city get nothing - at least we should be able to send our kids to schools where they can continue learning our language and sharing that knowledge with other kids. Unfortunately we don't even get that aside from a handful of seats at Oyster-Adams and a few other DCPS schools. I guess I can hope for the best from one of them, even though it isn't likely.

Please do tell me what I said in my two sentences that led you to feel like I'm complaining about how Latinos get all the perks and I'm entitled. I'll wait. You're a piece of work if you're implying that it's good that my friend got in illegally. Yes, LAMB did use scrupulous methods to admission from waitlist in the past (4+ years ago) and there are many people giving their testimony accordingly. No, it's is not legal, regardless of how right you think it feels. Also, my friend's family looks just like mine. With her, it was one parent that spoke Spanish language (not entirely fluent), had a Spanish last name, and went to Spanish daycare. Same with us except we don't have Spanish last name and we marked English as primary language (friend did not). Does it matter to you if I tell you that we live off teacher salaries and friends are attorneys?

I'm sorry if this is brought up more than you'd like Lamb parents but it's a true story of your past that you can't deny. There is no need to be dudes, defensive, mean, or outright hint that it was okay to break the law in any capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It probably doesn't hinder outreach. But LAMB is convinced that it's approach gives them the best shot at a diverse applicant pool. Maybe they don't want people to have to rank LAMB in preference order against the of their choices?

We can all form an opinion about their approach but it is their choice. And with 800 applicants it doesn't seem to be hurting them.

Yes but with their past (yes, I know first hand when my Spanish speaking friend got in and had a number 200 worse than me), they should not be allowed this luxury. It should have been required by the charter board.

Blah blah blah. Stop whining, open a new charter school if you do actually care about kids and bilingual ed.

So you hear about them breaking the law and your response is "too bad for you open your own chatter?" No that's not how it works, LAMB is a public charter and is obligated to follow the law. They should have repercussions for what they did. Fwiw we are at a very good school that we wouldn't leave for the world, and we didn't have to open a school to get it.

The point is that THEY ARE NOT BREAKING THE LAW. But by lying about that... YOU are.

Nobody said they are currently breaking the law. They DID break the law and they should have been placed on probation and be forced to join common lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It probably doesn't hinder outreach. But LAMB is convinced that it's approach gives them the best shot at a diverse applicant pool. Maybe they don't want people to have to rank LAMB in preference order against the of their choices?

We can all form an opinion about their approach but it is their choice. And with 800 applicants it doesn't seem to be hurting them.

Yes but with their past (yes, I know first hand when my Spanish speaking friend got in and had a number 200 worse than me), they should not be allowed this luxury. It should have been required by the charter board.

I love it when non-Latinos complain about how Latinos get all the perks. Give me a break. LAMB does not give any preference of any kind to Spanish-speakers. I know, I asked. Actually, if I'm honest, I begged. And they did not budge, did not take my name down, and were perfectly kind. But they made it clear this did not happen, regardless of what an "esteemed lottery consultant" claimed really happened behind the scenes.

For what it's worth, I am happy for LAMB that your Spanish-speaking friend got in. You seem like an entitled jerk. And Latinos in this city get nothing - at least we should be able to send our kids to schools where they can continue learning our language and sharing that knowledge with other kids. Unfortunately we don't even get that aside from a handful of seats at Oyster-Adams and a few other DCPS schools. I guess I can hope for the best from one of them, even though it isn't likely.

Please do tell me what I said in my two sentences that led you to feel like I'm complaining about how Latinos get all the perks and I'm entitled. I'll wait. You're a piece of work if you're implying that it's good that my friend got in illegally. Yes, LAMB did use scrupulous methods to admission from waitlist in the past (4+ years ago) and there are many people giving their testimony accordingly. No, it's is not legal, regardless of how right you think it feels. Also, my friend's family looks just like mine. With her, it was one parent that spoke Spanish language (not entirely fluent), had a Spanish last name, and went to Spanish daycare. Same with us except we don't have Spanish last name and we marked English as primary language (friend did not). Does it matter to you if I tell you that we live off teacher salaries and friends are attorneys?

I'm sorry if this is brought up more than you'd like Lamb parents but it's a true story of your past that you can't deny. There is no need to be dudes, defensive, mean, or outright hint that it was okay to break the law in any capacity.

*unscrupulous

[Anonymous]

Agreed. Start a new thread about LAMB's historic admissions policies.

I haven't heard that anyone has actually received a call. I heard from someone who attended that their child was a high draw but hasn't been called yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It probably doesn't hinder outreach. But LAMB is convinced that it's approach gives them the best shot at a diverse applicant pool. Maybe they don't want people to have to rank LAMB in preference order against the of their choices?

We can all form an opinion about their approach but it is their choice. And with 800 applicants it doesn't seem to be hurting them.

Yes but with their past (yes, I know first hand when my Spanish speaking friend got in and had a number 200 worse than me), they should not be allowed this luxury. It should have been required by the charter board.

Blah blah blah. Stop whining, open a new charter school if you do actually care about kids and bilingual ed.

So you hear about them breaking the law and your response is "too bad for you open your own chatter?" No that's not how it works, LAMB is a public charter and is obligated to follow the law. They should have repercussions for what they did. Fwiw we are at a very good school that we wouldn't leave for the world, and we didn't have to open a school to get it.

The point is that THEY ARE NOT BREAKING THE LAW. But by lying about that... YOU are.

Nobody said they are currently breaking the law. They DID break the law and they should have been placed on probation and be forced to join common lottery.

It is their choice not to join, but DCPCSB should question why they don't want to given the history and continued rumors of the wait list being used out of order in a way that contravenes the legal directive that charters be open to all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. Start a new thread about LAMB's historic admissions policies.

I haven't heard that anyone has actually received a call. I heard from someone who attended that their child was a high draw but hasn't been called yet.

Since they're not posting the results til Friday, maybe they're giving themselves a little more time to make the calls this year. Last year, the lottery was on a Friday and they hurried to make the calls the same day.