Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our PK3 kid just got off the waitlist, but we were told our K kid would have no chance at all of getting in. Anyone know if it's worth enrolling the younger one in hopes of last-minute movement? Or is it truly futile?

If they said no chance they mean no chance. Are you really up for a two school commute split?

Where are they enrolled currently? Could be worth it. Also you would have more leverage once enrolled to try and talk to various admin about this, it would depend on how many others are in the same boat and ahead of you.

I would ask the school:
1. Do they have kids on the K waitlist that are siblings of enrolled students?
2. Do siblings of enrolled students jump to the top of the waitlist?

Anonymous wrote:Our PK3 kid just got off the waitlist, but we were told our K kid would have no chance at all of getting in. Anyone know if it's worth enrolling the younger one in hopes of last-minute movement? Or is it truly futile?

If they've decided they will take no Ks and instead offer to PreK3s when spots open, what is going to change? I would ask if there is a chance for 1st grade (or do they not back-fill the upper grades and if not, how do they justify that decision in the context of a public charter school?)

If both my kids got it, I'm sure we'd seriously consider LAMB so am not at all suggesting there aren't merits to the school, but I would have a hard time accepting and offer worded in that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our PK3 kid just got off the waitlist, but we were told our K kid would have no chance at all of getting in. Anyone know if it's worth enrolling the younger one in hopes of last-minute movement? Or is it truly futile?

If they said no chance they mean no chance. Are you really up for a two school commute split?

Where are they enrolled currently? Could be worth it. Also you would have more leverage once enrolled to try and talk to various admin about this, it would depend on how many others are in the same boat and ahead of you.

Anonymous wrote:Our PK3 kid just got off the waitlist, but we were told our K kid would have no chance at all of getting in. Anyone know if it's worth enrolling the younger one in hopes of last-minute movement? Or is it truly futile?

If they said no chance they mean no chance. Are you really up for a two school commute split?

Our PK3 kid just got off the waitlist, but we were told our K kid would have no chance at all of getting in. Anyone know if it's worth enrolling the younger one in hopes of last-minute movement? Or is it truly futile?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, this has no been addressed.

I was under the impression that this didn't/wouldn't affect LAMB. Please confirm?

It affects LAMB. The question is when. No way does the original agreement give LAMB 70 seats a year at DCI (when signed LAMB’s largest class was about 40 students).

I’ve only ever heard about it on this board.

Anonymous wrote:It’s not that they’re not adding much, it’s that they’re not adding any PK4 or K. That’s not acting in the spirit of their agreement with the charter board.

We got in for K last year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, this has no been addressed.

I was under the impression that this didn't/wouldn't affect LAMB. Please confirm?

It affects LAMB. The question is when. No way does the original agreement give LAMB 70 seats a year at DCI (when signed LAMB’s largest class was about 40 students).

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, this has no been addressed.

I was under the impression that this didn't/wouldn't affect LAMB. Please confirm?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They aren’t trying to get to their enrollment ceiling of 600 in one year. That’s too much to ask. They are phasing it in over a number of years. And they are limited in their numbers allowed at Kingsbury for a few years. That is probably a big reason they may not be adding much this year.

Right - the phase in was supposed to have them growing to 484 by the end of SY 2018 and get to 600 by 2026. When they got the enrollment ceiling increase in 2016, Kingsbury wasn't on their radar screen at all so that isn't the issue.

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

No, this has no been addressed.

Anonymous wrote:It’s not that they’re not adding much, it’s that they’re not adding any PK4 or K. That’s not acting in the spirit of their agreement with the charter board.

LAMB doesn't care. Their PARCC, etc results are good enough, save a giant lawsuit that isn't covered by D&O, they will be around for years to come.

(Ps, new parents, the communication is terrible. We all just roll with it because our IB options are terrible)

It’s not that they’re not adding much, it’s that they’re not adding any PK4 or K. That’s not acting in the spirit of their agreement with the charter board.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They aren’t trying to get to their enrollment ceiling of 600 in one year. That’s too much to ask. They are phasing it in over a number of years. And they are limited in their numbers allowed at Kingsbury for a few years. That is probably a big reason they may not be adding much this year.

Link to audited enrollment by grade https://osse.dc.gov/node/1306796

Enrollment matrix link was posted earlier today