Startling Creative Minds Vacancies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I have many CMI friends and they all say the love the school but worry about middle school. no one has mentioned staff turnover, low salaries or the budget crisis looming at the school when the can't make a balloon payment and defualt.

CMI parent here. The financial crisis was not on my radar but staff turnover and low salaries were. Back in 2016, parents were told that CMI would be increasing the enrollment ceiling from 653 to 730 over the next ten years in order to ensure financial health and sustainability for the long term. So it seemed like they were doing something to mitigate increasing costs but the most recent financial report is surprising. To my knowledge there wasn't any public listerv discussion on this topic this school year. As for staff turnover and dissatisfaction, there was an emergency town hall a few months ago to address these topics with notes sent to the parent listserv for those who couldn't attend. Also for those of us unlucky enough to have experienced mid-year staffing turn over, this issue was impossible to ignore.

CMI feels like a sinking ship and I hope to get off of it after this school year.

[Anonymous]

Former CMI parent, a few of us who worked with the school knew about the financial situation. The admin and the parents all want things right now: middle school! Playground! Robotics club! White boards! Chinese! Fancy lunches!

There used to be volunteer parents who wrote grants and help mitigate a lot of cost, but the CFA was not interested and really pushed away involvement in the “playground or else” years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Former CMI parent, a few of us who worked with the school knew about the financial situation. The admin and the parents all want things right now: middle school! Playground! Robotics club! White boards! Chinese! Fancy lunches!

There used to be volunteer parents who wrote grants and help mitigate a lot of cost, but the CFA was not interested and really pushed away involvement in the “playground or else” years.

There's a job listing on the careers page for a development and grants person so maybe they are trying to hire this problem away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Former CMI parent, a few of us who worked with the school knew about the financial situation. The admin and the parents all want things right now: middle school! Playground! Robotics club! White boards! Chinese! Fancy lunches!

There used to be volunteer parents who wrote grants and help mitigate a lot of cost, but the CFA was not interested and really pushed away involvement in the “playground or else” years.

There's a job listing on the careers page for a development and grants person so maybe they are trying to hire this problem away.

The catch-22 is that donors, particularly foundations, want to invest in schools that are bigger (KIPP oitraises every charter in the city by a wide margin — as does the DCPS foundation). Raising money for little schools that serve a few hundred kids - from outside that school community - is not easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Former CMI parent, a few of us who worked with the school knew about the financial situation. The admin and the parents all want things right now: middle school! Playground! Robotics club! White boards! Chinese! Fancy lunches!

There used to be volunteer parents who wrote grants and help mitigate a lot of cost, but the CFA was not interested and really pushed away involvement in the “playground or else” years.

There's a job listing on the careers page for a development and grants person so maybe they are trying to hire this problem away.

The catch-22 is that donors, particularly foundations, want to invest in schools that are bigger (KIPP oitraises every charter in the city by a wide margin — as does the DCPS foundation). Raising money for little schools that serve a few hundred kids - from outside that school community - is not easy.

And "help us afford a fancy building and playground for an upper-income student body because we think we don't have to balance our budget is not exactly a compelling pitch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Former CMI parent, a few of us who worked with the school knew about the financial situation. The admin and the parents all want things right now: middle school! Playground! Robotics club! White boards! Chinese! Fancy lunches!

There used to be volunteer parents who wrote grants and help mitigate a lot of cost, but the CFA was not interested and really pushed away involvement in the “playground or else” years.

There's a job listing on the careers page for a development and grants person so maybe they are trying to hire this problem away.

The catch-22 is that donors, particularly foundations, want to invest in schools that are bigger (KIPP oitraises every charter in the city by a wide margin — as does the DCPS foundation). Raising money for little schools that serve a few hundred kids - from outside that school community - is not easy.

And "help us afford a fancy building and playground for an upper-income student body because we think we don't have to balance our budget is not exactly a compelling pitch.

Floortime services for and success with kids on the autism spectrum would be a better angle.

[Anonymous]

Floor-time and services aimed towards autism spectrum students may be a compelling need, but
how many such students are there really at CMI, 10-15 percent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Floor-time and services aimed towards autism spectrum students may be a compelling need, but
how many such students are there really at CMI, 10-15 percent?

Impossible to know. 28% of students have IEPs but all we know is the bands of service hours they qualify for (e.g. 67% of all the CMI students with IEPs are level 1, so less than 10 hours per week).

And there are no independent, peer reviewed studies showing floortime is necessarily more effective than other interventions.

If CMI wants to tout its commitment to students with SN, they should follow Bridges and go through the process to create a SN preference for the lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Floor-time and services aimed towards autism spectrum students may be a compelling need, but
how many such students are there really at CMI, 10-15 percent?

Impossible to know. 28% of students have IEPs but all we know is the bands of service hours they qualify for (e.g. 67% of all the CMI students with IEPs are level 1, so less than 10 hours per week).

And there are no independent, peer reviewed studies showing floortime is necessarily more effective than other interventions.

If CMI wants to tout its commitment to students with SN, they should follow Bridges and go through the process to create a SN preference for the lottery.

Are you sure? I thought this was their whole schtick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Floor-time and services aimed towards autism spectrum students may be a compelling need, but
how many such students are there really at CMI, 10-15 percent?

Impossible to know. 28% of students have IEPs but all we know is the bands of service hours they qualify for (e.g. 67% of all the CMI students with IEPs are level 1, so less than 10 hours per week).

And there are no independent, peer reviewed studies showing floortime is necessarily more effective than other interventions.

If CMI wants to tout its commitment to students with SN, they should follow Bridges and go through the process to create a SN preference for the lottery.

Are you sure? I thought this was their whole schtick.

Yes that is the intervention that CMI has built their program around. However, to date, there are NO independent studies of the Floortime program (e.g. peer-reviewed, published literature) and health insurance won't reimburse for it. Floortime with give you anecdotal data that they've compiled into reports, and many parents swear by it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Floor-time and services aimed towards autism spectrum students may be a compelling need, but
how many such students are there really at CMI, 10-15 percent?

Impossible to know. 28% of students have IEPs but all we know is the bands of service hours they qualify for (e.g. 67% of all the CMI students with IEPs are level 1, so less than 10 hours per week).

And there are no independent, peer reviewed studies showing floortime is necessarily more effective than other interventions.

If CMI wants to tout its commitment to students with SN, they should follow Bridges and go through the process to create a SN preference for the lottery.

Are you sure? I thought this was their whole schtick.

Yes that is the intervention that CMI has built their program around. However, to date, there are NO independent studies of the Floortime program (e.g. peer-reviewed, published literature) and health insurance won't reimburse for it. Floortime with give you anecdotal data that they've compiled into reports, and many parents swear by it.

That’s because it’s similar to a cult. But it only works for one type of kid. If you are at CMI and your child has other needs, well - best of luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Floor-time and services aimed towards autism spectrum students may be a compelling need, but
how many such students are there really at CMI, 10-15 percent?

Impossible to know. 28% of students have IEPs but all we know is the bands of service hours they qualify for (e.g. 67% of all the CMI students with IEPs are level 1, so less than 10 hours per week).

And there are no independent, peer reviewed studies showing floortime is necessarily more effective than other interventions.

If CMI wants to tout its commitment to students with SN, they should follow Bridges and go through the process to create a SN preference for the lottery.

This. And if CMI is so committed to it, maybe prioritize that over going into debt for a fancy playground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Former CMI parent, a few of us who worked with the school knew about the financial situation. The admin and the parents all want things right now: middle school! Playground! Robotics club! White boards! Chinese! Fancy lunches!

There used to be volunteer parents who wrote grants and help mitigate a lot of cost, but the CFA was not interested and really pushed away involvement in the “playground or else” years.

There's a job listing on the careers page for a development and grants person so maybe they are trying to hire this problem away.

The catch-22 is that donors, particularly foundations, want to invest in schools that are bigger (KIPP oitraises every charter in the city by a wide margin — as does the DCPS foundation). Raising money for little schools that serve a few hundred kids - from outside that school community - is not easy.

And "help us afford a fancy building and playground for an upper-income student body because we think we don't have to balance our budget is not exactly a compelling pitch.

Floortime services for and success with kids on the autism spectrum would be a better angle.

If I were a donor I would be looking for financial responsibility, not a school that runs up debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Floor-time and services aimed towards autism spectrum students may be a compelling need, but
how many such students are there really at CMI, 10-15 percent?

Impossible to know. 28% of students have IEPs but all we know is the bands of service hours they qualify for (e.g. 67% of all the CMI students with IEPs are level 1, so less than 10 hours per week).

And there are no independent, peer reviewed studies showing floortime is necessarily more effective than other interventions.

If CMI wants to tout its commitment to students with SN, they should follow Bridges and go through the process to create a SN preference for the lottery.

Are you sure? I thought this was their whole schtick.

Yes that is the intervention that CMI has built their program around. However, to date, there are NO independent studies of the Floortime program (e.g. peer-reviewed, published literature) and health insurance won't reimburse for it. Floortime with give you anecdotal data that they've compiled into reports, and many parents swear by it.

That’s because it’s similar to a cult. But it only works for one type of kid. If you are at CMI and your child has other needs, well - best of luck.

There’s more to it than that, but it isn’t an academic intervention. It is designed to help improve social engagement and joint attention — critical skills for children with autism. But if, for example, your child has dyslexia, dyscalculia, a speech disorder unrelated to autism, it won’t help one bit.

And that is why some CMI parents swear by it for their SN kids and others are bitterly disappointed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Floor-time and services aimed towards autism spectrum students may be a compelling need, but
how many such students are there really at CMI, 10-15 percent?

Impossible to know. 28% of students have IEPs but all we know is the bands of service hours they qualify for (e.g. 67% of all the CMI students with IEPs are level 1, so less than 10 hours per week).

And there are no independent, peer reviewed studies showing floortime is necessarily more effective than other interventions.

If CMI wants to tout its commitment to students with SN, they should follow Bridges and go through the process to create a SN preference for the lottery.

Are you sure? I thought this was their whole schtick.

Yes that is the intervention that CMI has built their program around. However, to date, there are NO independent studies of the Floortime program (e.g. peer-reviewed, published literature) and health insurance won't reimburse for it. Floortime with give you anecdotal data that they've compiled into reports, and many parents swear by it.

That’s because it’s similar to a cult. But it only works for one type of kid. If you are at CMI and your child has other needs, well - best of luck.

There’s more to it than that, but it isn’t an academic intervention. It is designed to help improve social engagement and joint attention — critical skills for children with autism. But if, for example, your child has dyslexia, dyscalculia, a speech disorder unrelated to autism, it won’t help one bit.

And that is why some CMI parents swear by it for their SN kids and others are bitterly disappointed.

and adhd? Perhaps that is why it works so well for my friend's son. They are well into elementary and very happy.