Startling Creative Minds Vacancies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CMI reaching 8th grade this year should help the finances, e.g., the specials teachers for upper elementary and middle only taught up to 7th grade last year but will teach up to 8th grade this year. Additionally, this year begins the graduation of grades with only 2 classes and the grades with 3 classes will soon begin reaching upper elementary and then middle which should also help financially.

If I’m not mistaken, ITS has the same model and just getting to some middle grades with two classes per grade. I don’t recal if their financials were ever as dire. They also pay their teachers significantly more. I’m at a loss figuring out CMI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the amoutn of debt CMI has, I dpnt understand how they pay it off. Yes, they recieve tas dollars for students but is that nearly enough to cover the debt servce and salaries and growth of the middle school. I alraedy know their teachers arent paid nearly enough. I honestly don't understand why there isnt more oversight from the charter board on spending at schools. I know they are "independent" but clearly they need a better CFO!

There is oversight. That is literally what these reports are - the result of oversight activities. There are limits to how much debt is allowed and monitoring of cash flow and contracts.

CMIs Board now needs to act, or not. Same for their academic performance.

When is the CMI charter up for review/renewal?

It's only meaningful oversight if the board or DCPCSB actually does something. Just reporting that there's a deficit is not enough.

What they can do is defined by the charter law and very limited. They can issue "notices of concern" and require additional reports, and of course they can decline to renew the charter when it is next up for review. They can literally only revoke a charter when a school runs out of money (like Washington Math Science recently) or after failing to achieve academic targets.

But they can still apply pressure and ask for answers, even if their legal remedies are limited. Seems like they are content to let schools crash and burn.

How do you know they aren't doing this? Notices of concern are applying pressure and asking for answers. And they communicate with schools informally all the time.

Just because you don't see everything, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Did you even know anything about CMI's finances before this thread? Their financial position isn't new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the amoutn of debt CMI has, I dpnt understand how they pay it off. Yes, they recieve tas dollars for students but is that nearly enough to cover the debt servce and salaries and growth of the middle school. I alraedy know their teachers arent paid nearly enough. I honestly don't understand why there isnt more oversight from the charter board on spending at schools. I know they are "independent" but clearly they need a better CFO!

There is oversight. That is literally what these reports are - the result of oversight activities. There are limits to how much debt is allowed and monitoring of cash flow and contracts.

CMIs Board now needs to act, or not. Same for their academic performance.

When is the CMI charter up for review/renewal?

It's only meaningful oversight if the board or DCPCSB actually does something. Just reporting that there's a deficit is not enough.

What they can do is defined by the charter law and very limited. They can issue "notices of concern" and require additional reports, and of course they can decline to renew the charter when it is next up for review. They can literally only revoke a charter when a school runs out of money (like Washington Math Science recently) or after failing to achieve academic targets.

But they can still apply pressure and ask for answers, even if their legal remedies are limited. Seems like they are content to let schools crash and burn.

How do you know they aren't doing this? Notices of concern are applying pressure and asking for answers. And they communicate with schools informally all the time.

Just because you don't see everything, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Did you even know anything about CMI's finances before this thread? Their financial position isn't new.

Because of how they let WMSTHS and Sustainable Futures crash and burn. I don't know about CMi specifically, but in general they basically give schools way too much rope. Then, oh noes, we can't let them close so here is a ton of money for consultants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the amoutn of debt CMI has, I dpnt understand how they pay it off. Yes, they recieve tas dollars for students but is that nearly enough to cover the debt servce and salaries and growth of the middle school. I alraedy know their teachers arent paid nearly enough. I honestly don't understand why there isnt more oversight from the charter board on spending at schools. I know they are "independent" but clearly they need a better CFO!

There is oversight. That is literally what these reports are - the result of oversight activities. There are limits to how much debt is allowed and monitoring of cash flow and contracts.

CMIs Board now needs to act, or not. Same for their academic performance.

When is the CMI charter up for review/renewal?

It's only meaningful oversight if the board or DCPCSB actually does something. Just reporting that there's a deficit is not enough.

What they can do is defined by the charter law and very limited. They can issue "notices of concern" and require additional reports, and of course they can decline to renew the charter when it is next up for review. They can literally only revoke a charter when a school runs out of money (like Washington Math Science recently) or after failing to achieve academic targets.

But they can still apply pressure and ask for answers, even if their legal remedies are limited. Seems like they are content to let schools crash and burn.

How do you know they aren't doing this? Notices of concern are applying pressure and asking for answers. And they communicate with schools informally all the time.

Just because you don't see everything, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Did you even know anything about CMI's finances before this thread? Their financial position isn't new.

Because of how they let WMSTHS and Sustainable Futures crash and burn. I don't know about CMi specifically, but in general they basically give schools way too much rope. Then, oh noes, we can't let them close so here is a ton of money for consultants.

What you are complaining about is a feature not a bug. That is how charters are supposed to function -- if you don't like it, go to a DCPS school, where students can fail for a decade without anything changing.

One correction -- the PCSB doesn't give schools that are in danger of failing any extra money. If a school on the brink chooses to spend its money on consultants, that is a decision its individual board makes. Also, it rarely works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the amoutn of debt CMI has, I dpnt understand how they pay it off. Yes, they recieve tas dollars for students but is that nearly enough to cover the debt servce and salaries and growth of the middle school. I alraedy know their teachers arent paid nearly enough. I honestly don't understand why there isnt more oversight from the charter board on spending at schools. I know they are "independent" but clearly they need a better CFO!

There is oversight. That is literally what these reports are - the result of oversight activities. There are limits to how much debt is allowed and monitoring of cash flow and contracts.

CMIs Board now needs to act, or not. Same for their academic performance.

When is the CMI charter up for review/renewal?

It's only meaningful oversight if the board or DCPCSB actually does something. Just reporting that there's a deficit is not enough.

What they can do is defined by the charter law and very limited. They can issue "notices of concern" and require additional reports, and of course they can decline to renew the charter when it is next up for review. They can literally only revoke a charter when a school runs out of money (like Washington Math Science recently) or after failing to achieve academic targets.

But they can still apply pressure and ask for answers, even if their legal remedies are limited. Seems like they are content to let schools crash and burn.

How do you know they aren't doing this? Notices of concern are applying pressure and asking for answers. And they communicate with schools informally all the time.

Just because you don't see everything, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Did you even know anything about CMI's finances before this thread? Their financial position isn't new.

Because of how they let WMSTHS and Sustainable Futures crash and burn. I don't know about CMi specifically, but in general they basically give schools way too much rope. Then, oh noes, we can't let them close so here is a ton of money for consultants.

What you are complaining about is a feature not a bug. That is how charters are supposed to function -- if you don't like it, go to a DCPS school, where students can fail for a decade without anything changing.

One correction -- the PCSB doesn't give schools that are in danger of failing any extra money. If a school on the brink chooses to spend its money on consultants, that is a decision its individual board makes. Also, it rarely works.

I actually do go to a DCPS school. But I am a taxpayer and I object to the lack of oversight of charters just like in any program. If I were a charter parent, I would want better oversight to avoid my school going bankrupt over the objections of parents. It baffles me why charter advocates think incidents like WMSTHS and Sustainable Futures are not harmful to the charter movement overall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the amoutn of debt CMI has, I dpnt understand how they pay it off. Yes, they recieve tas dollars for students but is that nearly enough to cover the debt servce and salaries and growth of the middle school. I alraedy know their teachers arent paid nearly enough. I honestly don't understand why there isnt more oversight from the charter board on spending at schools. I know they are "independent" but clearly they need a better CFO!

There is oversight. That is literally what these reports are - the result of oversight activities. There are limits to how much debt is allowed and monitoring of cash flow and contracts.

CMIs Board now needs to act, or not. Same for their academic performance.

When is the CMI charter up for review/renewal?

It's only meaningful oversight if the board or DCPCSB actually does something. Just reporting that there's a deficit is not enough.

What they can do is defined by the charter law and very limited. They can issue "notices of concern" and require additional reports, and of course they can decline to renew the charter when it is next up for review. They can literally only revoke a charter when a school runs out of money (like Washington Math Science recently) or after failing to achieve academic targets.

But they can still apply pressure and ask for answers, even if their legal remedies are limited. Seems like they are content to let schools crash and burn.

How do you know they aren't doing this? Notices of concern are applying pressure and asking for answers. And they communicate with schools informally all the time.

Just because you don't see everything, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Did you even know anything about CMI's finances before this thread? Their financial position isn't new.

Because of how they let WMSTHS and Sustainable Futures crash and burn. I don't know about CMi specifically, but in general they basically give schools way too much rope. Then, oh noes, we can't let them close so here is a ton of money for consultants.

What you are complaining about is a feature not a bug. That is how charters are supposed to function -- if you don't like it, go to a DCPS school, where students can fail for a decade without anything changing.

One correction -- the PCSB doesn't give schools that are in danger of failing any extra money. If a school on the brink chooses to spend its money on consultants, that is a decision its individual board makes. Also, it rarely works.

So glad to have anti-charter feature not a bug poster back. Thanks for your one note tune again!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the amoutn of debt CMI has, I dpnt understand how they pay it off. Yes, they recieve tas dollars for students but is that nearly enough to cover the debt servce and salaries and growth of the middle school. I alraedy know their teachers arent paid nearly enough. I honestly don't understand why there isnt more oversight from the charter board on spending at schools. I know they are "independent" but clearly they need a better CFO!

There is oversight. That is literally what these reports are - the result of oversight activities. There are limits to how much debt is allowed and monitoring of cash flow and contracts.

CMIs Board now needs to act, or not. Same for their academic performance.

When is the CMI charter up for review/renewal?

It's only meaningful oversight if the board or DCPCSB actually does something. Just reporting that there's a deficit is not enough.

What they can do is defined by the charter law and very limited. They can issue "notices of concern" and require additional reports, and of course they can decline to renew the charter when it is next up for review. They can literally only revoke a charter when a school runs out of money (like Washington Math Science recently) or after failing to achieve academic targets.

But they can still apply pressure and ask for answers, even if their legal remedies are limited. Seems like they are content to let schools crash and burn.

How do you know they aren't doing this? Notices of concern are applying pressure and asking for answers. And they communicate with schools informally all the time.

Just because you don't see everything, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Did you even know anything about CMI's finances before this thread? Their financial position isn't new.

Because of how they let WMSTHS and Sustainable Futures crash and burn. I don't know about CMi specifically, but in general they basically give schools way too much rope. Then, oh noes, we can't let them close so here is a ton of money for consultants.

What you are complaining about is a feature not a bug. That is how charters are supposed to function -- if you don't like it, go to a DCPS school, where students can fail for a decade without anything changing.

One correction -- the PCSB doesn't give schools that are in danger of failing any extra money. If a school on the brink chooses to spend its money on consultants, that is a decision its individual board makes. Also, it rarely works.

I actually do go to a DCPS school. But I am a taxpayer and I object to the lack of oversight of charters just like in any program. If I were a charter parent, I would want better oversight to avoid my school going bankrupt over the objections of parents. It baffles me why charter advocates think incidents like WMSTHS and Sustainable Futures are not harmful to the charter movement overall.

I don't think it's good for anyone when a school fails. But I also don't think it's good when there are NO consequences for failure to perform, either financially or academically.

Charter parents have to engage with the boards of their charter schools. That is who is in charge and that is who they need to apply pressure to. Most don't even know who is serving on their boards - which is appalling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the amoutn of debt CMI has, I dpnt understand how they pay it off. Yes, they recieve tas dollars for students but is that nearly enough to cover the debt servce and salaries and growth of the middle school. I alraedy know their teachers arent paid nearly enough. I honestly don't understand why there isnt more oversight from the charter board on spending at schools. I know they are "independent" but clearly they need a better CFO!

There is oversight. That is literally what these reports are - the result of oversight activities. There are limits to how much debt is allowed and monitoring of cash flow and contracts.

CMIs Board now needs to act, or not. Same for their academic performance.

When is the CMI charter up for review/renewal?

It's only meaningful oversight if the board or DCPCSB actually does something. Just reporting that there's a deficit is not enough.

What they can do is defined by the charter law and very limited. They can issue "notices of concern" and require additional reports, and of course they can decline to renew the charter when it is next up for review. They can literally only revoke a charter when a school runs out of money (like Washington Math Science recently) or after failing to achieve academic targets.

But they can still apply pressure and ask for answers, even if their legal remedies are limited. Seems like they are content to let schools crash and burn.

How do you know they aren't doing this? Notices of concern are applying pressure and asking for answers. And they communicate with schools informally all the time.

Just because you don't see everything, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Did you even know anything about CMI's finances before this thread? Their financial position isn't new.

Because of how they let WMSTHS and Sustainable Futures crash and burn. I don't know about CMi specifically, but in general they basically give schools way too much rope. Then, oh noes, we can't let them close so here is a ton of money for consultants.

What you are complaining about is a feature not a bug. That is how charters are supposed to function -- if you don't like it, go to a DCPS school, where students can fail for a decade without anything changing.

One correction -- the PCSB doesn't give schools that are in danger of failing any extra money. If a school on the brink chooses to spend its money on consultants, that is a decision its individual board makes. Also, it rarely works.

I actually do go to a DCPS school. But I am a taxpayer and I object to the lack of oversight of charters just like in any program. If I were a charter parent, I would want better oversight to avoid my school going bankrupt over the objections of parents. It baffles me why charter advocates think incidents like WMSTHS and Sustainable Futures are not harmful to the charter movement overall.

I don't think it's good for anyone when a school fails. But I also don't think it's good when there are NO consequences for failure to perform, either financially or academically.

Charter parents have to engage with the boards of their charter schools. That is who is in charge and that is who they need to apply pressure to. Most don't even know who is serving on their boards - which is appalling.

But what a lot of us have been saying is that PCSB needs to have stronger mechanisms for parents to be heard, and to have stronger oversight when boards fail to do so (which is proving to be very common). I really don't think any charter advocate in this city (who is a parent...) thinks these failures are good. Maybe in theory, but not in practice.

[Anonymous]

Sometimes it seems like the high-income-servinf charters don't want to comply with oversight, so they insist on minimal oversight, even if it leads to a lot of chaos and failure for low-income schools. CMI is a case of a high income student body school in financial trouble, so it will be interestinf to observe.

[Anonymous]

I don't disagree.

The city council needs to give the PCSB the authority to do more or redefine their role.

But to say that right now -- under the current rules -- they need to do "more oversight" isn't fair. Their hands are tied to a great degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't disagree.

The city council needs to give the PCSB the authority to do more or redefine their role.

But to say that right now -- under the current rules -- they need to do "more oversight" isn't fair. Their hands are tied to a great degree.

Maybe legally, but i think they could be more proactive in a practical sense. And they admitted in the hearing that they basically whiffed it on WMSTHS by not researching the actual value of the builiding.

[Anonymous]

Are CMI parents concerned? I have several friends with kids there, but would be awkward to bring up..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are CMI parents concerned? I have several friends with kids there, but would be awkward to bring up..

I think they are more concerned with staff turnover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are CMI parents concerned? I have several friends with kids there, but would be awkward to bring up..

I think they are more concerned with staff turnover.

Which will be made even worse with class size increases and budget cuts to pay the debt.

I just think an expensive facility like that means making some tradeoffs.

[Anonymous]

CMI reaching 8th grade this year should help the finances, e.g., the specials teachers for upper elementary and middle only taught up to 7th grade last year but will teach up to 8th grade this year. Additionally, this year begins the graduation of grades with only 2 classes and the grades with 3 classes will soon begin reaching upper elementary and then middle which should also help financially.

If I’m not mistaken, ITS has the same model and just getting to some middle grades with two classes per grade. I don’t recal if their financials were ever as dire. They also pay their teachers significantly more. I’m at a loss figuring out CMI.

ITS has a greater total number of students yet fewer SN students than CMI which inherently makes CMI's model more expensive due to the additional aides, inclusion specialists, therapists, etc. That's why I think CMI finally reaching 8th grade this year, having 3 classes in a grade instead of 2, hiring full-time therapists instead of outsourcing, etc. is all going to help CMI financially in the long-run.