Seriously? "New Founders" at Creative Minds?

[Anonymous]

I don't have it in for CM. I want to see them succeed. I've heard good things, and heaven knows DC needs more good options. But, you don't succeed, or disprove the naysayers by cheating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I wasn't making anything up. I was asking a question. But by your logic, it would be even more ridiculous to add a founder the year after their opening year. That would make this founder 2 years late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I wasn't making anything up. I was asking a question. But by your logic, it would be even more ridiculous to add a founder the year after their opening year. That would make this founder 2 years late.

Not sure whom you're talking to, but I'm the PP directly above who says the school has already been founded. Were it not founded, it could not be open. This is the opening year, therefore it is too late to add founders.

[Anonymous]

Considering this link has been opened 4,020 times, I really do think it's time for someone from CM to chime in.

[Anonymous]

To the person that emailed the charter school board, did you hear anything back?

I agree that CM and/or the charter school board needs to explain what is going on.

[Anonymous]

Have WaPo investigate

[Anonymous]

I'd like to be named a founder now. Anyone have a key person I can talk to? I'll tell 'em you sent me. TIA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the person that emailed the charter school board, did you hear anything back?

I agree that CM and/or the charter school board needs to explain what is going on.

No. No response or any sort of automatic "thank you for your message" email. I agree that a CM rep should be stepping in to explain by now. I'm sure they know about this thread by now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person that emailed the charter school board, did you hear anything back?

I agree that CM and/or the charter school board needs to explain what is going on.

No. No response or any sort of automatic "thank you for your message" email. I agree that a CM rep should be stepping in to explain by now. I'm sure they know about this thread by now.

Are you sure? No one has claimed to have sent it to them.

[Anonymous]

I find it interesting that James chimed in on a recent CM thread, and not on this one. Makes me think that something fishy IS going on with this. Its a shame if it is, because I have really wanted to love this school (although my WL numbers have been awful so far!)

[Anonymous]

They are figuring out how to retroactively change waitlist to support incredible #s for these children without the bogus founder status - and since it wasn't public - but they had a witness - they can do it.

[Anonymous]

CM - be careful! Don't lose your Charter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are figuring out how to retroactively change waitlist to support incredible #s for these children without the bogus founder status - and since it wasn't public - but they had a witness - they can do it.

huh? How do you know this?

[Anonymous]

PP, this is a troll. Just let her go back to her cave...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, this is a troll. Just let her go back to her cave...

It was snarky, but that doesn't make her a troll. It's not as if the story isn't out there. If she's high on the WL, and irritated because that sort of cheating might keep her child out, then I don't blame her for being bitter or wanting to shine a spotlight.