Updates on LAMB at Kingsbury?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t want your school or kids in my backyard, be they green or blue. The neighborhood will fight this and likely win. LAMB needs to focus on the current lawsuit with their teachers sexually assaulting children and then the CEO/admins cover up. If the school covers up sexual assault, how much more would they be willing to bury under the guise of “educating children?”

NOT IN MY BACKYARD and NOT ON MY WATCH! Take your charter lottery and debacle elsewhere.

Nah, they won’t win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh right, to reduce the number of blacks.

Check off that box as "done". LAMB is 17.3% Black and 9.7% at-risk. West is 55% black and 38% at-risk. Brightwood is 20% black and 42% at-risk. For those neighbors who are concerned about "who" LAMB is bringing to the neighborhood, don't worry. No one is lowering property values by allowing a high performing school of mostly well-to-do non-black kids to occupy Kingsbury.

We’re pretty comfortable with a diverse neighborhood and have no issue with school kids in the neighborhood.

I just don’t believe that LAMB is about serving underserved children. It serves few economically disadvantaged kids and even fewer at-risk.

LAMB definitely has as its core mission to serve underserved and economically disadvantaged children. They were just too good at it, and as a result, UMC people flocked to the school, apply in large numbers, and because it’s done by lottery, the demographics of the school have changed.

By "too good at it" can you clarify what you mean by "it"? They don't do especially well in teaching disadvantaged kids. I'm not sure what scores you're looking at.

[Anonymous]

Regardless of what it’s core mission might have been in the beginning, that ship has sailed. And every LAMB parent knows that and I do not hear them bemoaning this fact.. And, let’s not pretend that the area around Kingsbury has not changed significantly and gentrified - and gotten whiter by the minute - just like the rest of the city. A house on Farragut right next to the West playground just sold for over $900K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh right, to reduce the number of blacks.

Check off that box as "done". LAMB is 17.3% Black and 9.7% at-risk. West is 55% black and 38% at-risk. Brightwood is 20% black and 42% at-risk. For those neighbors who are concerned about "who" LAMB is bringing to the neighborhood, don't worry. No one is lowering property values by allowing a high performing school of mostly well-to-do non-black kids to occupy Kingsbury.

We’re pretty comfortable with a diverse neighborhood and have no issue with school kids in the neighborhood.

I just don’t believe that LAMB is about serving underserved children. It serves few economically disadvantaged kids and even fewer at-risk.

LAMB definitely has as its core mission to serve underserved and economically disadvantaged children. They were just too good at it, and as a result, UMC people flocked to the school, apply in large numbers, and because it’s done by lottery, the demographics of the school have changed.

It might be LAMB's core mission but that's never been reflective of their population. Even when they had less than 100 kids in the early years, the poverty rate was 10% or less. LAMB is "just too good at it" for the majority of the kids that it serves -- but, if PARCC is the measure, that's not underserved and disadvantaged children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh right, to reduce the number of blacks.

Check off that box as "done". LAMB is 17.3% Black and 9.7% at-risk. West is 55% black and 38% at-risk. Brightwood is 20% black and 42% at-risk. For those neighbors who are concerned about "who" LAMB is bringing to the neighborhood, don't worry. No one is lowering property values by allowing a high performing school of mostly well-to-do non-black kids to occupy Kingsbury.

We’re pretty comfortable with a diverse neighborhood and have no issue with school kids in the neighborhood.

I just don’t believe that LAMB is about serving underserved children. It serves few economically disadvantaged kids and even fewer at-risk.

And moving to kingsbury will only hurt those populations even more- total hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t want your school or kids in my backyard, be they green or blue. The neighborhood will fight this and likely win. LAMB needs to focus on the current lawsuit with their teachers sexually assaulting children and then the CEO/admins cover up. If the school covers up sexual assault, how much more would they be willing to bury under the guise of “educating children?”

NOT IN MY BACKYARD and NOT ON MY WATCH! Take your charter lottery and debacle elsewhere.

Nah, they won’t win.

You’re probably right but I suspect lamb may have to abandon it. Then again you shouldn’t underestimate their capacity for poor decisions

[Anonymous]

This is such a shitty thread.

[Anonymous]

This is a really shitty thread and the worst part is: it doesn't need to be this way.

If charters and the city could collaborate better (at all), they could decide that Kingsbury is the perfect spot and move forward on it. A gradual move in with checks and balances to elected officials would appease most neighbors (all reasonable ones anyway). The DC government could finance it based on bonds against the future facilities funds for LAMB, which seems like a pretty safe bet.

No shady middle men, accountable elected officials in charge. Surely not perfect, but makes a lot more sense to me.

Instead we're playing this stupid game with sides pitted against each other. For what?

And where is that task force on cross sector collaboration? Sitting on their thumbs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a really shitty thread and the worst part is: it doesn't need to be this way.

If charters and the city could collaborate better (at all), they could decide that Kingsbury is the perfect spot and move forward on it. A gradual move in with checks and balances to elected officials would appease most neighbors (all reasonable ones anyway). The DC government could finance it based on bonds against the future facilities funds for LAMB, which seems like a pretty safe bet.

No shady middle men, accountable elected officials in charge. Surely not perfect, but makes a lot more sense to me.

Instead we're playing this stupid game with sides pitted against each other. For what?

And where is that task force on cross sector collaboration? Sitting on their thumbs?

Exactly. We are talking about public schools! The city should really be involved but instead it thinks it’s in competition with them and won’t lift a finger. And then blames it on people wanting it that way (where’s feature not a big guy?). No, nobody wants this! It’s called public education and urban planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is such a shitty thread.

Agreed. I don't understand why people think LAMB (or any school) can control who lotteries in. It really doesn't matter where they are located. UMC parents are going to chase a spot and follow them to it. If folks want to talk about how the HRCs serve at-risk kids, that sounds like a productive thread, but that is no this thread. The idea that a few rich white folks want to preserve their "suburban" neighborhood by keeping a public school out ought to be a universally panned position, but people here look for any and every reason to hate on LAMB. It's having a hard enough time recovering from poor leadership, mismanagement, and a terrible abuse problem. The city piling on out of misplaced "principles" is not really going to help.

[Anonymous]

In its earliest year (my DC started in year 2) LSMB was 50% Latino, 30% Black and 20% white.

I think the Montessori + foreign language has limited its appeal to the economically disadvantaged population. Add to that the 5 different facilities in first 7 years, never being near a metro (and no subsidized school transit) and then sibling and staff preference and small size which makes anyone’s odds of getting in low.

The old (now gone) leadership did care but never really figured out how to effectively recruit lower income Black families, and even if they applied the chances of getting in were as minuscule as everyone else’s).

[Anonymous]

The Kingsbuty site was never designed to be a school. It was a private mansion.

It has been a small, specialized school for a couple decades which has fallen on hard times economically.

LAMB would be a very different beast and despite assurances about people using transit I assume 90% of families will drive. Maybe they will give up the requirement of kids being escorted in by parents in favor of a drop off line. But dropoff and pickup will be a major pain for the neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a really shitty thread and the worst part is: it doesn't need to be this way.

If charters and the city could collaborate better (at all), they could decide that Kingsbury is the perfect spot and move forward on it. A gradual move in with checks and balances to elected officials would appease most neighbors (all reasonable ones anyway). The DC government could finance it based on bonds against the future facilities funds for LAMB, which seems like a pretty safe bet.

No shady middle men, accountable elected officials in charge. Surely not perfect, but makes a lot more sense to me.

Instead we're playing this stupid game with sides pitted against each other. For what?

And where is that task force on cross sector collaboration? Sitting on their thumbs?

Exactly. We are talking about public schools! The city should really be involved but instead it thinks it’s in competition with them and won’t lift a finger. And then blames it on people wanting it that way (where’s feature not a big guy?). No, nobody wants this! It’s called public education and urban planning.

There is an element of charter schools not wanting to give up any autonomy.

What I'm talking about is giving up some autonomy from the city in exchange for help with financing and location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Kingsbuty site was never designed to be a school. It was a private mansion.

It has been a small, specialized school for a couple decades which has fallen on hard times economically.

LAMB would be a very different beast and despite assurances about people using transit I assume 90% of families will drive. Maybe they will give up the requirement of kids being escorted in by parents in favor of a drop off line. But dropoff and pickup will be a major pain for the neighbors.

History is important to know, but it doesn't mean things can't change. Schools move and buildings are repurposed. I do think it would be best to move in gradually. But your position of demanding that things never change from how they were is just unreasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a really shitty thread and the worst part is: it doesn't need to be this way.

If charters and the city could collaborate better (at all), they could decide that Kingsbury is the perfect spot and move forward on it. A gradual move in with checks and balances to elected officials would appease most neighbors (all reasonable ones anyway). The DC government could finance it based on bonds against the future facilities funds for LAMB, which seems like a pretty safe bet.

No shady middle men, accountable elected officials in charge. Surely not perfect, but makes a lot more sense to me.

Instead we're playing this stupid game with sides pitted against each other. For what?

And where is that task force on cross sector collaboration? Sitting on their thumbs?

Exactly. We are talking about public schools! The city should really be involved but instead it thinks it’s in competition with them and won’t lift a finger. And then blames it on people wanting it that way (where’s feature not a big guy?). No, nobody wants this! It’s called public education and urban planning.

There is an element of charter schools not wanting to give up any autonomy.

What I'm talking about is giving up some autonomy from the city in exchange for help with financing and location.

Oh really? Where's that offer? I don't think the city has any interest in this whatsoever.