Seriously? "New Founders" at Creative Minds?

[Anonymous]

Why bother verifying the facts? Let the charter board do it. This is like the threads on residency cheaters where they want everyone to police offenders themselves and not bothering to let the people who are supposed to handle it do their jobs. Why are people advocating for vigilanteism when it's totally not necessary? This can't be a hard one. Tell the board ______ has been named to the board as a founder. He/she has two pre-kers starting in the fall due to founders preference. Ask them if _____ is actually a founder and if they say no, ask for an investigation. They'll take it from there.

[Anonymous]

You guys are losers. Looks like the three of you don't have lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why bother verifying the facts? Let the charter board do it. This is like the threads on residency cheaters where they want everyone to police offenders themselves and not bothering to let the people who are supposed to handle it do their jobs. Why are people advocating for vigilanteism when it's totally not necessary? This can't be a hard one. Tell the board ______ has been named to the board as a founder. He/she has two pre-kers starting in the fall due to founders preference. Ask them if _____ is actually a founder and if they say no, ask for an investigation. They'll take it from there.

True, she could call and talk to the admin person who answers the phone. She could tell them that she heard some gossip at school or read a rumor on DCUM, it concerns the possibility that someone has been added as a founder at a school. And, that means the person's children got founder's preference, and that's bugging her. That would be unfair, so could someone please go check on that right now? This is a HOT TIP, no doubt more important than anything the person is actually working on at the moment. Could she please call back with the results? Asap?

Or, she could decide she doesn't want to risk looking like a complete idiot. She also doesn't want to risk having her request punted to the bottom of the "to do" list because it sounds like rumor-mongering among stressed and/or bitter parents who are sweating out the waitlist. Instead, she says she is very interested in XYZ school and is considering it for her children. She would like to know more about the school via details in the charter application, since it is public information, after all. Would the person answering the phone be able to read through the document with her? For example, the sections on education plan, business plan, and curriculum? Also, the expertise which the founders brought to the project? On second thought, that would be tedious, and she can run through it all herself, when is a convenient time to come in and do that?

If it turns out to be true, then she has proof and can request that action be taken. If it is not true, then she has debunked some gossip (and avoided looking like an idiot).

[Anonymous]

I have no horse in this race, but as someone who was a founder of another school, I can tell you that lots of volunteers are involved in the effort after the charter application is submitted, without whose efforts the school would never open. Believe me, submitting the application was just the beginning. And there is nothing in the law that says your founders for admissions purposes have to be identical to those named in the charter application as such. So perhaps this person was recognized as a founder after the fact to remedy a situation where he/she made tremendous contributions of time and expertise to open the school after the application was submitted, and truly was a "founder" but then found him or herself out of luck in the lottery. Doesn't strike me as horrible.
Although I'd feel different if someone was named a founder merely because of financial contributions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no horse in this race, but as someone who was a founder of another school, I can tell you that lots of volunteers are involved in the effort after the charter application is submitted, without whose efforts the school would never open. Believe me, submitting the application was just the beginning. And there is nothing in the law that says your founders for admissions purposes have to be identical to those named in the charter application as such. So perhaps this person was recognized as a founder after the fact to remedy a situation where he/she made tremendous contributions of time and expertise to open the school after the application was submitted, and truly was a "founder" but then found him or herself out of luck in the lottery. Doesn't strike me as horrible.
Although I'd feel different if someone was named a founder merely because of financial contributions.

if this was the situatin - why would the children only be added to the waitlist now after the lottery? If the person was a founder - they would be the 1st children admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no horse in this race, but as someone who was a founder of another school, I can tell you that lots of volunteers are involved in the effort after the charter application is submitted, without whose efforts the school would never open. Believe me, submitting the application was just the beginning. And there is nothing in the law that says your founders for admissions purposes have to be identical to those named in the charter application as such. So perhaps this person was recognized as a founder after the fact to remedy a situation where he/she made tremendous contributions of time and expertise to open the school after the application was submitted, and truly was a "founder" but then found him or herself out of luck in the lottery. Doesn't strike me as horrible.
Although I'd feel different if someone was named a founder merely because of financial contributions.

There is also no way to establish whether or not someone is truly a founder unless they are formally identified as such. If they are being recognized ex post facto, then the school should verify that, otherwise there's room for unethical behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no horse in this race, but as someone who was a founder of another school, I can tell you that lots of volunteers are involved in the effort after the charter application is submitted, without whose efforts the school would never open. Believe me, submitting the application was just the beginning. And there is nothing in the law that says your founders for admissions purposes have to be identical to those named in the charter application as such. So perhaps this person was recognized as a founder after the fact to remedy a situation where he/she made tremendous contributions of time and expertise to open the school after the application was submitted, and truly was a "founder" but then found him or herself out of luck in the lottery. Doesn't strike me as horrible.
Although I'd feel different if someone was named a founder merely because of financial contributions.

if this was the situatin - why would the children only be added to the waitlist now after the lottery? If the person was a founder - they would be the 1st children admitted.

This.

[Anonymous]

This is really interesting to me. I have a 2.5 year old in a private day care. As a Hebrew speaking family, we asked a board member at Sela about whether we got preference as Hebrew speakers. We were told no, they are not allowed to give language preference, that it was a charter board rule. I asked if we could join the board and get a preference, and they said, no board members don't get preference, only founders identified in application, of which there were 3-4. It needs to be consistent from school to school. It is frustrating as a parent when you really care about a school and they basically tell you it's a lottery, their hands are tied, etc. and then someone who doesn't really care about the school gets in - and might not be invested in the school's mission and leaves later on. It feels like you are literally be forced to move to MoCo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why bother verifying the facts? Let the charter board do it. This is like the threads on residency cheaters where they want everyone to police offenders themselves and not bothering to let the people who are supposed to handle it do their jobs. Why are people advocating for vigilanteism when it's totally not necessary? This can't be a hard one. Tell the board ______ has been named to the board as a founder. He/she has two pre-kers starting in the fall due to founders preference. Ask them if _____ is actually a founder and if they say no, ask for an investigation. They'll take it from there.

True, she could call and talk to the admin person who answers the phone. She could tell them that she heard some gossip at school or read a rumor on DCUM, it concerns the possibility that someone has been added as a founder at a school. And, that means the person's children got founder's preference, and that's bugging her. That would be unfair, so could someone please go check on that right now? This is a HOT TIP, no doubt more important than anything the person is actually working on at the moment. Could she please call back with the results? Asap?

Or, she could decide she doesn't want to risk looking like a complete idiot. She also doesn't want to risk having her request punted to the bottom of the "to do" list because it sounds like rumor-mongering among stressed and/or bitter parents who are sweating out the waitlist. Instead, she says she is very interested in XYZ school and is considering it for her children. She would like to know more about the school via details in the charter application, since it is public information, after all. Would the person answering the phone be able to read through the document with her? For example, the sections on education plan, business plan, and curriculum? Also, the expertise which the founders brought to the project? On second thought, that would be tedious, and she can run through it all herself, when is a convenient time to come in and do that?

If it turns out to be true, then she has proof and can request that action be taken. If it is not true, then she has debunked some gossip (and avoided looking like an idiot).

What a loaded crock you've written. You've got a lot of time on your hands! Back to reality for the rest of us. If you have reason to believe that someone is conducting themselves with respect to charter rules, it is totally appropriate to report the matter to the PCSB. Clearly, the "rumor" got out there and there's buzz about with someone coming forward asking for discretion on here. If this is that widely known whomever has specific info. should report it to the charter board. Simple. All of this "look like an idiot" load of bull is just fodder to keep people from taking progressive action properly. The focusing on "not looking like an idiot" is so juvenile and, worst yet, cheating deserving kids out their rightful spot. Shame on the "new founders" (another crock) and on those who abet them.

[Anonymous]

There have been a few grievances on here against CM in the last couple of months...the aggressively hostile front office representative who pissed everyone off, the rumor that families were told that the lottery wasn't public, the fact that the lottery waitlist is not made available (you only receive a postcard with your child's number) and now this. I couldn't find their founders list on their website...is it there somewhere?

Anyway, to me it sounds like either CM has some folks who dedicated to be detractors or the school is shady and less transparent than it should be. My gut says the latter.

If in fact someone was able to buy their way into the school, CM should be punished. Emma at the Post, please look into this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There have been a few grievances on here against CM in the last couple of months...the aggressively hostile front office representative who pissed everyone off, the rumor that families were told that the lottery wasn't public, the fact that the lottery waitlist is not made available (you only receive a postcard with your child's number) and now this. I couldn't find their founders list on their website...is it there somewhere?

Anyway, to me it sounds like either CM has some folks who dedicated to be detractors or the school is shady and less transparent than it should be. My gut says the latter.

If in fact someone was able to buy their way into the school, CM should be punished. Emma at the Post, please look into this.

This is the feeling I'm getting as well, which makes me sad because it was otherwise my first choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no horse in this race, but as someone who was a founder of another school, I can tell you that lots of volunteers are involved in the effort after the charter application is submitted, without whose efforts the school would never open. Believe me, submitting the application was just the beginning. And there is nothing in the law that says your founders for admissions purposes have to be identical to those named in the charter application as such. So perhaps this person was recognized as a founder after the fact to remedy a situation where he/she made tremendous contributions of time and expertise to open the school after the application was submitted, and truly was a "founder" but then found him or herself out of luck in the lottery. Doesn't strike me as horrible.
Although I'd feel different if someone was named a founder merely because of financial contributions.

if this was the situatin - why would the children only be added to the waitlist now after the lottery? If the person was a founder - they would be the 1st children admitted.

If the person is determined to be a founder within the confines of charter law, fine. If not, they need to be prevented from unfairly using a founders preference. No of this can be determined unless the governing body (PCSB) is notified. Remember the principle who tried to hire his wife as assistant. People who made a stink probably felt bad and probably thought nothing would be done. Well, the principle cannot hire his wife now. A precedent of requiring ethics has gotten started. It's about time.

[Anonymous]

For the record, it was not a rumor that CM held a private lottery. I was informed of this by their enrollment coordinator, who said that they did not have anyone who'd demonstrated an interest in attending a public one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the record, it was not a rumor that CM held a private lottery. I was informed of this by their enrollment coordinator, who said that they did not have anyone who'd demonstrated an interest in attending a public one.

What I heard here was that someone called to ask when it was so they could attend and they were told that there was no public lottery and that it was not required that there be one.

[Anonymous]

^^ Report that to the charter board. They're required to have a public lottery for obvious reasons. Sheesh. The shenanigans these charters are pulling and getting away with is dizzying.