Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Kingsbury location is extremely close to the Missouri Avenue building. I'm stunned that parents who applied to the school and then randomly were placed at South Dakota when that easily could have not been the case think they have a leg to stand on with this.

You are told the campus you're assigned to when you accept. The military road school is smaller than South Dakota. So it would be totally reasonable to believe the administration when they tell you the lease at South Dakota is up in 2020.

But of course the administration lied again.

They believed it when they said it. It was true then. They just didn't feel impeded by having promised it before.

Anonymous wrote:The Kingsbury location is extremely close to the Missouri Avenue building. I'm stunned that parents who applied to the school and then randomly were placed at South Dakota when that easily could have not been the case think they have a leg to stand on with this.

You are told the campus you're assigned to when you accept. The military road school is smaller than South Dakota. So it would be totally reasonable to believe the administration when they tell you the lease at South Dakota is up in 2020.

But of course the administration lied again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep again. So much complaining. It's really sad.

This is a school with a long history of uprooting families to move from inadequate space to inadequate space. People are smart to be asking LOTS of questions.

Long history of total mismanagement too....

Anonymous wrote:Yep again. So much complaining. It's really sad.

This is a school with a long history of uprooting families to move from inadequate space to inadequate space. People are smart to be asking LOTS of questions.

Yep again. So much complaining. It's really sad.

The Kingsbury location is extremely close to the Missouri Avenue building. I'm stunned that parents who applied to the school and then randomly were placed at South Dakota when that easily could have not been the case think they have a leg to stand on with this.

Yes, it's the thing I hate most about LAMB. The constant complaining from the parents.

Yep I agreee. I cannot believe all of this negativity.

Anonymous wrote:Jesus Christ. So we are looking and buying the place and engaging in renovations? Seriously? No thank you. I don't want to uproot my whole family for another place that is to small. We could lease out the rest of Perry street and they'd be enough space for the whole school. Dumb.

You could wait until the parent meeting in 3 days to get all the details before deciding that it is a stupid decision.

Jesus Christ. So we are looking and buying the place and engaging in renovations? Seriously? No thank you. I don't want to uproot my whole family for another place that is to small. We could lease out the rest of Perry street and they'd be enough space for the whole school. Dumb.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I bet they don't allow 29 kids/ classroom like a Montessori primary class. Smaller class size limits would make a big difference.

That wouldn't affect the occupancy limits -- DCRA doesn't tell you what class size you should have and work from that.

But, the layout is very different from a typical school. Kingsbury has the school, a tutoring center, and a therapy/testing center, so much of it is not classroom space.

In the lower and middle schools, classrooms are sized for 8 to 12 students. There's no way you can fit 30 kids into one of them. Knocking down the walls between rooms would just give you very long, narrow classrooms. There would have to be a lot of interior reconfiguration.

DCRA doesn't care what the educational model is or the students special needs. It is about the fire code.

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.

I bet they don't allow 29 kids/ classroom like a Montessori primary class. Smaller class size limits would make a big difference.

Anonymous wrote:

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...

There are already 8 primary classrooms classrooms.....

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.

The space looks gorgeous but if it requires us to build on that beautiful green space it makes no sense to move.