Seriously? "New Founders" at Creative Minds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been trying to decide whether to wade into this conversation....here I go:

I'm a CM parent. Given how thorough and well-connected to other charters the CM board and administration appear to be, there is almost zero chance that they held the "private" lottery without consulting with the charter board. It's my understanding there were witnesses present at the lottery.

Second, I've checked the DC Code and founding board members isn't defined, thus leaving it subject to interpretation. This is the founding year of the school, so it is a a reasonable interpretation to include in the definition board members who are added this year. I believe someone mentioned at least one other charter that has interpreted the language this way. There's nothing in the statute that says founding board members include only those persons who were members of the Board on the first day of school -- that's your assumption and not clearly the law. A broader, more flexible interpretation may not be the one you prefer, but it's the one the CM Board has taken and it's almost certainly not a violation of the statute.

If I were looking at all of this from the outside (and within the stress of engaging the lottery process as I did last year), I might be more suspicious as well. As a parent who has interacted with many of the people you're accusing, I'm not as quick to jump to conclusions.

Congrats - you have drank the cool-aid. You are now an insider and ratioanlizing the behavior. This is also how ENRON failed.

[Anonymous]

So we're these "founders" added AFTER the lottery took place. And did these "founders" enter their children in the lottery and if so where on the waitlist did they land?

[Anonymous]

Representatives from the school have weighed in on threads concerning CM before (like when everyone was complaining about one of CM's front office representatives), so I actually find it quite telling that a CM rep hasn't posted on this thread yet to supposedly dispel the misinformation...so maybe it's true that they pulled strings to get an important supporter's kids in, ala Fenty/Lafayette. Disappointing...maybe some snubbed waitlisted families will file a formal inquiry and lawsuit. Litigation is the only thing that will nip this sort of stuff in the bud.

[Anonymous]

Harpies! This is a nasty display of a witch hunt...are you all the same ones who started the vitriol against YY??? I have never seen such rabid behavior about something one person was supposedly told. Until this alleged wrong has been proven to be true, go back to your perches and get a life! If this is how chartered parents behave, I don't want anything to do them. We'll stay where we are, thanks...

[Anonymous]

I don't know, if I was on that WL and I heard this I would want to understand what is going on. All parents are doing everything within their means to get their children into the best fit for the child and family. A lottery just plain sucks but at least it is fair. The idea of people bending g/breaking the rules is slimy, and it is not as is there are a wealth of great options for everyone. You take away the fair and you just have DC politics as usual and I am sure all the "founding members" of CM do not want to see themselves I that light.

I have no dog I this fight, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harpies! This is a nasty display of a witch hunt...are you all the same ones who started the vitriol against YY??? I have never seen such rabid behavior about something one person was supposedly told. Until this alleged wrong has been proven to be true, go back to your perches and get a life! If this is how chartered parents behave, I don't want anything to do them. We'll stay where we are, thanks...

1st off, this is not all based on one person's allegation. It's the intersection of several factors that makes this so easy to believe. Not gonna review those, they've been quite adequately covered here.

2nd, please do stay at whatever non-chartered school you are at. That's better for all of us - gotta love a win-win! (Not sure everyone where you are will agree, but hopefully you're much less name-call-y in person.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harpies! This is a nasty display of a witch hunt...are you all the same ones who started the vitriol against YY??? I have never seen such rabid behavior about something one person was supposedly told. Until this alleged wrong has been proven to be true, go back to your perches and get a life! If this is how chartered parents behave, I don't want anything to do them. We'll stay where we are, thanks...

Why so? Because the conversation continues? (and what the hell does this have to do with YY??)

Earlier in this thread, I was one of the voices defending the school, pointing out that allegations are merely that. Rumors, not proof. But more detail is emerging as the thread evolves and now I find myself thinking this process looks very opaque when it is designed to be transparent.

It really raises the level of scepticism that the school decided to hold a closed lottery. And because no-one expressed interest in a public one? Come on, don't treat us like idiots. That smells very, very bad.

Plus, there's some specificity coming out about the "new founders" that no longer sound like rumor-mongering. Look, the school's booster(s) can say until they're blue in the face that it's the founding year, but that's BS and we all know it. The school has been founded. The charter is the document upon which is was founded, once it was voted to be approved by the PCSB. It continues to grow, yes, but it does not continue to be founded. That event is a bright line and it has already occurred. It's very, very troubling that people are trying to fudge their way around this. It's like a birth certificate, not a gray area - the names are on the charter application as founders or they are not.

[Anonymous]

To the CM parent who posted (and others reading this thread):

When you say that it's the "founding year" this year, what does that mean? Do I not understand the process? CM was open last year. School started August 27, 2012. Wouldn't the 2012-2013 school year be the "founding year"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harpies! This is a nasty display of a witch hunt...are you all the same ones who started the vitriol against YY??? I have never seen such rabid behavior about something one person was supposedly told. Until this alleged wrong has been proven to be true, go back to your perches and get a life! If this is how chartered parents behave, I don't want anything to do them. We'll stay where we are, thanks...

Why so? Because the conversation continues? (and what the hell does this have to do with YY??)

Earlier in this thread, I was one of the voices defending the school, pointing out that allegations are merely that. Rumors, not proof. But more detail is emerging as the thread evolves and now I find myself thinking this process looks very opaque when it is designed to be transparent.

It really raises the level of scepticism that the school decided to hold a closed lottery. And because no-one expressed interest in a public one? Come on, don't treat us like idiots. That smells very, very bad.

Plus, there's some specificity coming out about the "new founders" that no longer sound like rumor-mongering. Look, the school's booster(s) can say until they're blue in the face that it's the founding year, but that's BS and we all know it. The school has been founded. The charter is the document upon which is was founded, once it was voted to be approved by the PCSB. It continues to grow, yes, but it does not continue to be founded. That event is a bright line and it has already occurred. It's very, very troubling that people are trying to fudge their way around this. It's like a birth certificate, not a gray area - the names are on the charter application as founders or they are not.

Beatifully stated.

[Anonymous]

I'm starting to think an organization seperate from the Charter Board needs to be established to ensure transparency and authenticity and integrity of the Charter lotteries, waitlists and enrollment practices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the CM parent who posted (and others reading this thread):

When you say that it's the "founding year" this year, what does that mean? Do I not understand the process? CM was open last year. School started August 27, 2012. Wouldn't the 2012-2013 school year be the "founding year"?

The "founding" is an event that takes place on a day, not over the course of a year.

Harvard (the nation's oldest university) celebrates the date of its founding, September 8th, 1836. Considering that the Massachusetts Assembly met on the 8th to vote to fund the school, but actually completed the vote on October 28th, the school has still managed to establish its founding date. Even though the calendar changed from Julian dates to Gregorian dates, the school managed to arrive at the date of its founding.

CM should be able to do the same.

Founding happens on a date, not a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the CM parent who posted (and others reading this thread):

When you say that it's the "founding year" this year, what does that mean? Do I not understand the process? CM was open last year. School started August 27, 2012. Wouldn't the 2012-2013 school year be the "founding year"?

The "founding" is an event that takes place on a day, not over the course of a year.

Harvard (the nation's oldest university) celebrates the date of its founding, September 8th, 1836. Considering that the Massachusetts Assembly met on the 8th to vote to fund the school, but actually completed the vote on October 28th, the school has still managed to establish its founding date. Even though the calendar changed from Julian dates to Gregorian dates, the school managed to arrive at the date of its founding.

CM should be able to do the same.

Founding happens on a date, not a year.

Well, for what it's worth, Harvard was founded in 1636, not 1836.

Were they providing education in 1635, though? I do not believe so.

That is what would be going on at CM. Logic would dictate that their "founding year" would be the first year they were operating as an educational institution - which would be the 2012-2013 school year that is soon to be concluded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the CM parent who posted (and others reading this thread):

When you say that it's the "founding year" this year, what does that mean? Do I not understand the process? CM was open last year. School started August 27, 2012. Wouldn't the 2012-2013 school year be the "founding year"?

The "founding" is an event that takes place on a day, not over the course of a year.

Harvard (the nation's oldest university) celebrates the date of its founding, September 8th, 1836. Considering that the Massachusetts Assembly met on the 8th to vote to fund the school, but actually completed the vote on October 28th, the school has still managed to establish its founding date. Even though the calendar changed from Julian dates to Gregorian dates, the school managed to arrive at the date of its founding.

CM should be able to do the same.

Founding happens on a date, not a year.

Well, for what it's worth, Harvard was founded in 1636, not 1836.

Were they providing education in 1635, though? I do not believe so.

That is what would be going on at CM. Logic would dictate that their "founding year" would be the first year they were operating as an educational institution - which would be the 2012-2013 school year that is soon to be concluded.

Yes, 1636. 1836 was a typo. Whether or not they were providing an education is not the point. The point is the date of foundation - which is the event that occurred when the funding was approved by the governing body. In the case of CM, that occurred when the PCSB voted to approve the charter. As of that event, CM officially was founded. It didn't continue to be founded over the course of 2012 - 2013 any more than Harvard continued to be founded over the year 1636, 1637, 1638, 1836, 2006, or 2013. The vote established the foundation of the institution, and fixed it to a date.

It's like having a baby, birth is a bright line. Yes, it was gestating for 9 months inside and continued to develop on the outside for many years later. As far as the law is concerned birth was a one-day event.

[Anonymous]

Actually:

the founding year is the school year before the school opens. It's actually a defined term - because there are disbursements from OSSE that are attached to "founding year" expenditures. For example, the CM application lists FY as 2011-2012; SY 2012-2013 as its first year, and SY 2013-2014 as its second year.

Accordingly, members of the CM "founding group" have to be individuals identified in 2011-2012. It's not just a listing. The PCSB checks the credit about people identified in the application as founding group members, and schools are required to notify the Board if they have additions during this year and provide their SSNs. It's not a joke. It is done to stop people from adding their friends (or wealthy benafactors) in after the FY -because doing so is unfair to all of the other applicants for those spaces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the CM parent who posted (and others reading this thread):

When you say that it's the "founding year" this year, what does that mean? Do I not understand the process? CM was open last year. School started August 27, 2012. Wouldn't the 2012-2013 school year be the "founding year"?

The "founding" is an event that takes place on a day, not over the course of a year.

Harvard (the nation's oldest university) celebrates the date of its founding, September 8th, 1836. Considering that the Massachusetts Assembly met on the 8th to vote to fund the school, but actually completed the vote on October 28th, the school has still managed to establish its founding date. Even though the calendar changed from Julian dates to Gregorian dates, the school managed to arrive at the date of its founding.

CM should be able to do the same.

Founding happens on a date, not a year.

Well, for what it's worth, Harvard was founded in 1636, not 1836.

Were they providing education in 1635, though? I do not believe so.

That is what would be going on at CM. Logic would dictate that their "founding year" would be the first year they were operating as an educational institution - which would be the 2012-2013 school year that is soon to be concluded.

You're just making stuff up that's convenient for your little narrative as though no-one can tell the difference. 2012-2013 is their opening year. Not "founding" - opening.