CMI expanding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:77 kids over the next 10 years? Hardly anything to get your panties in a bunch over people.

Agree. But the very low class sizes were a differentiator and source of pride for many enrolled (and prospective) families. Not surprised this shift is sparking discussion and probably some snark here from those who are jealous or thought it was not sustainable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a whole bunch of detail on the PCSB site here: http://www.dcpcsb.org/public-comment. It looks to me like the increase is primarily for facilities and more administrative support.

Most interesting to me:
-Target of 18 kids per class for PK3 and PK4, but including a "buffer" request that could permit up to 20 kids in those classes.
-Enrollment ceiling of 730, including up to 70 kids in a "satellite" classroom program.

Don't be misleading with the quotes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:77 kids over the next 10 years? Hardly anything to get your panties in a bunch over people.

Unless you're being dishonest. Class sizes may be fungible, dishonesty is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:77 kids over the next 10 years? Hardly anything to get your panties in a bunch over people.

Agree. But the very low class sizes were a differentiator and source of pride for many enrolled (and prospective) families. Not surprised this shift is sparking discussion and probably some snark here from those who are jealous or thought it was not sustainable.

Agree, but going from 17 to 18 in ECE and going from 18 to 20 is really not much to get dramatic about (to pay for all the things CMI says they do).

I see people snark at MV when they expanded, they snarked at YY when they raised prices to pay for all their aftercare and now they snark at CMI.

I tell you what, pay charter schools equal per student funding and then we won't have to go through this every third/fourth year when a school finds its perm location.

Or is it just me having lived through this for 20 years of charter schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:77 kids over the next 10 years? Hardly anything to get your panties in a bunch over people.

Unless you're being dishonest. Class sizes may be fungible, dishonesty is not.

That makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:77 kids over the next 10 years? Hardly anything to get your panties in a bunch over people.

Agree. But the very low class sizes were a differentiator and source of pride for many enrolled (and prospective) families. Not surprised this shift is sparking discussion and probably some snark here from those who are jealous or thought it was not sustainable.

Agree, but going from 17 to 18 in ECE and going from 18 to 20 is really not much to get dramatic about (to pay for all the things CMI says they do).

I see people snark at MV when they expanded, they snarked at YY when they raised prices to pay for all their aftercare and now they snark at CMI.

I tell you what, pay charter schools equal per student funding and then we won't have to go through this every third/fourth year when a school finds its perm location.

Or is it just me having lived through this for 20 years of charter schools?

Maybe CM should raise aftercare prices instead. YY has 16 kids in ECE and 18 kids per classroom in k-5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are expanding the preschool/prek classes to 18 students and k-8 to 20 kids per class. Still pretty low ratios, imo.

20 kids per class? I remember CMI parents looking down on other charters that have 22 kids per class.
Do they even need charter approval to expand classes (since they haven't reached their ceiling yet)?
Does this mean CMI will have more funds to pay for more experienced teachers or are they using funds for facilities?

those PS rooms are tiny. Like even more tiny compared to other schools I visisted (Cap City, Mundo Verde and my IB). I can't even imagine squeezing in another kid in there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:77 kids over the next 10 years? Hardly anything to get your panties in a bunch over people.

Agree. But the very low class sizes were a differentiator and source of pride for many enrolled (and prospective) families. Not surprised this shift is sparking discussion and probably some snark here from those who are jealous or thought it was not sustainable.

Agree, but going from 17 to 18 in ECE and going from 18 to 20 is really not much to get dramatic about (to pay for all the things CMI says they do).

I see people snark at MV when they expanded, they snarked at YY when they raised prices to pay for all their aftercare and now they snark at CMI.

I tell you what, pay charter schools equal per student funding and then we won't have to go through this every third/fourth year when a school finds its perm location.

Or is it just me having lived through this for 20 years of charter schools?

Maybe CM should raise aftercare prices instead. YY has 16 kids in ECE and 18 kids per classroom in k-5.

Yeah CMI - price people out of the school like YY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:77 kids over the next 10 years? Hardly anything to get your panties in a bunch over people.

Agree. But the very low class sizes were a differentiator and source of pride for many enrolled (and prospective) families. Not surprised this shift is sparking discussion and probably some snark here from those who are jealous or thought it was not sustainable.

Agree, but going from 17 to 18 in ECE and going from 18 to 20 is really not much to get dramatic about (to pay for all the things CMI says they do).

I see people snark at MV when they expanded, they snarked at YY when they raised prices to pay for all their aftercare and now they snark at CMI.

I tell you what, pay charter schools equal per student funding and then we won't have to go through this every third/fourth year when a school finds its perm location.

Or is it just me having lived through this for 20 years of charter schools?

Maybe CM should raise aftercare prices instead. YY has 16 kids in ECE and 18 kids per classroom in k-5.

Our aftercare is already extraordinarily expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:77 kids over the next 10 years? Hardly anything to get your panties in a bunch over people.

Agree. But the very low class sizes were a differentiator and source of pride for many enrolled (and prospective) families. Not surprised this shift is sparking discussion and probably some snark here from those who are jealous or thought it was not sustainable.

Agree, but going from 17 to 18 in ECE and going from 18 to 20 is really not much to get dramatic about (to pay for all the things CMI says they do).

I see people snark at MV when they expanded, they snarked at YY when they raised prices to pay for all their aftercare and now they snark at CMI.

I tell you what, pay charter schools equal per student funding and then we won't have to go through this every third/fourth year when a school finds its perm location.

Or is it just me having lived through this for 20 years of charter schools?

Maybe CM should raise aftercare prices instead. YY has 16 kids in ECE and 18 kids per classroom in k-5.

Yeah CMI - price people out of the school like YY.

That would probably raise test scores, which would make it more of a success. Great idea!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:77 kids over the next 10 years? Hardly anything to get your panties in a bunch over people.

Agree. But the very low class sizes were a differentiator and source of pride for many enrolled (and prospective) families. Not surprised this shift is sparking discussion and probably some snark here from those who are jealous or thought it was not sustainable.

Agree, but going from 17 to 18 in ECE and going from 18 to 20 is really not much to get dramatic about (to pay for all the things CMI says they do).

I see people snark at MV when they expanded, they snarked at YY when they raised prices to pay for all their aftercare and now they snark at CMI.

I tell you what, pay charter schools equal per student funding and then we won't have to go through this every third/fourth year when a school finds its perm location.

Or is it just me having lived through this for 20 years of charter schools?

Not just you - and I've only been living it for 11 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:77 kids over the next 10 years? Hardly anything to get your panties in a bunch over people.

Agree. But the very low class sizes were a differentiator and source of pride for many enrolled (and prospective) families. Not surprised this shift is sparking discussion and probably some snark here from those who are jealous or thought it was not sustainable.

Agree, but going from 17 to 18 in ECE and going from 18 to 20 is really not much to get dramatic about (to pay for all the things CMI says they do).

I see people snark at MV when they expanded, they snarked at YY when they raised prices to pay for all their aftercare and now they snark at CMI.

I tell you what, pay charter schools equal per student funding and then we won't have to go through this every third/fourth year when a school finds its perm location.

Or is it just me having lived through this for 20 years of charter schools?

Maybe CM should raise aftercare prices instead. YY has 16 kids in ECE and 18 kids per classroom in k-5.

Our aftercare is already extraordinarily expensive.

How much does it cost? I never got that answer at the open house? Althouh anythign is cheaper than the current 1900/month I pay my nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:77 kids over the next 10 years? Hardly anything to get your panties in a bunch over people.

Agree. But the very low class sizes were a differentiator and source of pride for many enrolled (and prospective) families. Not surprised this shift is sparking discussion and probably some snark here from those who are jealous or thought it was not sustainable.

Agree, but going from 17 to 18 in ECE and going from 18 to 20 is really not much to get dramatic about (to pay for all the things CMI says they do).

I see people snark at MV when they expanded, they snarked at YY when they raised prices to pay for all their aftercare and now they snark at CMI.

I tell you what, pay charter schools equal per student funding and then we won't have to go through this every third/fourth year when a school finds its perm location.

Or is it just me having lived through this for 20 years of charter schools?

Maybe CM should raise aftercare prices instead. YY has 16 kids in ECE and 18 kids per classroom in k-5.

Our aftercare is already extraordinarily expensive.

How much does it cost? I never got that answer at the open house? Althouh anythign is cheaper than the current 1900/month I pay my nanny.

It is on the website http://www.creativemindspcs.org/After%20School%20Registration%20Form%20Updated%20October%202015.docx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:77 kids over the next 10 years? Hardly anything to get your panties in a bunch over people.

Agree. But the very low class sizes were a differentiator and source of pride for many enrolled (and prospective) families. Not surprised this shift is sparking discussion and probably some snark here from those who are jealous or thought it was not sustainable.

Agree, but going from 17 to 18 in ECE and going from 18 to 20 is really not much to get dramatic about (to pay for all the things CMI says they do).

I see people snark at MV when they expanded, they snarked at YY when they raised prices to pay for all their aftercare and now they snark at CMI.

I tell you what, pay charter schools equal per student funding and then we won't have to go through this every third/fourth year when a school finds its perm location.

Or is it just me having lived through this for 20 years of charter schools?

Maybe CM should raise aftercare prices instead. YY has 16 kids in ECE and 18 kids per classroom in k-5.

Our aftercare is already extraordinarily expensive.

How much does it cost? I never got that answer at the open house? Althouh anythign is cheaper than the current 1900/month I pay my nanny.

It is on the website http://www.creativemindspcs.org/After%20School%20Registration%20Form%20Updated%20October%202015.docx

thanks! That still seems like a steal to me. Aren't people used to paying like 5 times that much for all day child care. I don't know why folks complain about $360 a month when that barely coverss a week of child care in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

thanks! That still seems like a steal to me. Aren't people used to paying like 5 times that much for all day child care. I don't know why folks complain about $360 a month when that barely coverss a week of child care in DC.

Because aftercare is something that many working parents need. If you make it expensive, then it's hard for low SES families to make it work, which then skews the population that can attend. Given that this is a city-wide public school, it should be set up to serve all families well - not just those that can afford expensive aftercare.