Seriously? "New Founders" at Creative Minds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone know the deal with their wait list? Why theirs is the only one not moving?

1. It is the smallest student body of the charters you are looking at (fewer total spots available to move)
2. Paper work not due yet
3. The spots that have become available were given to the friends of current founders (a new priority that was not accounted for in the private lottery they held)

[Anonymous]

I guess I'm not so confident with my high WL number anymore. Sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anyone know the deal with their wait list? Why theirs is the only one not moving?

1. It is the smallest student body of the charters you are looking at (fewer total spots available to move)
2. Paper work not due yet
3. The spots that have become available were given to the friends of current founders (a new priority that was not accounted for in the private lottery they held)

Numbers 1 and 2 make sense as to why the waitlist wouldn't be moving.

What I don't understand about #3 is people are stating a rumor that would have moved the waitlist as a reason why the waitlist has not moved. If this person was not accounted for until after the lottery as so many people here have said, then the waitlist would have moved down at least 2 spots, right? I don't know about the whole board member/founder thing, but I'm not buying that any of this happened after the lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My only caution is this. I am part of the founding group of another charter - listed in the app. No kids currently, and while I want to remain optimistic about my struggle with infertility, it might not happen for me. Still, I can imagine a scenario where years down the line, we have a new school leader who doesn't know me, doesn't know how hard I worked to build the school, etc. and somehow they don't reserve a space for my kids - and then I have to remind them post-lottery when I am given a WL number instead of an acceptance letter. Remember that some founders of schools are not parents, but God wiling, they will be parents in the future - and screw-ups can happen, particularly for a new school like CM. I wish we could reserve judgment until we have all of the facts. Hopefully the PCSB will investigate and take action if necessary.

This would only be even possible as a scenario if many years had passed since CM opened. But this is only year 2 or 3! It's not like so many who founded it have turned over, and yet it's way too late to be adding new founding members.

I understand the scenario you've laid out, but it's impossible in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anyone know the deal with their wait list? Why theirs is the only one not moving?

1. It is the smallest student body of the charters you are looking at (fewer total spots available to move)
2. Paper work not due yet
3. The spots that have become available were given to the friends of current founders (a new priority that was not accounted for in the private lottery they held)

Numbers 1 and 2 make sense as to why the waitlist wouldn't be moving.

What I don't understand about #3 is people are stating a rumor that would have moved the waitlist as a reason why the waitlist has not moved. If this person was not accounted for until after the lottery as so many people here have said, then the waitlist would have moved down at least 2 spots, right? I don't know about the whole board member/founder thing, but I'm not buying that any of this happened after the lottery.

I think you're confused. If slots open up because someone leaves/doesn't enroll, and those 2 spots are filled by alleged board member kids who were NOT at the top of the waitlist, why would the list move for those in the top 5 the way it would on any properly maintained waitlist? The board kids admitted wre either not on the W L at all, or they had crappy numbers, either of which would have not moved the top 2 into the slots they should have gotten when 2 slots opened up.

[Anonymous]

I think you're confused. If slots open up because someone leaves/doesn't enroll, and those 2 spots are filled by alleged board member kids who were NOT at the top of the waitlist, why would the list move for those in the top 5 the way it would on any properly maintained waitlist? The board kids admitted wre either not on the W L at all, or they had crappy numbers, either of which would have not moved the top 2 into the slots they should have gotten when 2 slots opened up.

Okay, I see now, thanks for the explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So did CM have a public lottery?

No private.

That already seemed shady, but then when a couple people on DCUM said they found out when they called CM to find out when the lottery would be.

I don't like this at all. I thought the law required the lottery to be open to the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My only caution is this. I am part of the founding group of another charter - listed in the app. No kids currently, and while I want to remain optimistic about my struggle with infertility, it might not happen for me. Still, I can imagine a scenario where years down the line, we have a new school leader who doesn't know me, doesn't know how hard I worked to build the school, etc. and somehow they don't reserve a space for my kids - and then I have to remind them post-lottery when I am given a WL number instead of an acceptance letter. Remember that some founders of schools are not parents, but God wiling, they will be parents in the future - and screw-ups can happen, particularly for a new school like CM. I wish we could reserve judgment until we have all of the facts. Hopefully the PCSB will investigate and take action if necessary.

PP, I hope you have the children you're struggling for. However, your situation doesn't apply here. Really, that's the point of being listed on the application. You can always point to it to establish proof, whether or not a school administrator knows you. Yes, a lot of people throw in their effort to start a school, but at the end of the day, it's the ones listed on the charter application that qualify as founders. It's cut and dried that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think you're confused. If slots open up because someone leaves/doesn't enroll, and those 2 spots are filled by alleged board member kids who were NOT at the top of the waitlist, why would the list move for those in the top 5 the way it would on any properly maintained waitlist? The board kids admitted wre either not on the W L at all, or they had crappy numbers, either of which would have not moved the top 2 into the slots they should have gotten when 2 slots opened up.

Okay, I see now, thanks for the explanation.

The problem is there is no preference for the children of board members. There is preference for the children of founders, but not board members. Not all founders are board members and not all board members are founders.

[Anonymous]

I've been trying to decide whether to wade into this conversation....here I go:

I'm a CM parent. Given how thorough and well-connected to other charters the CM board and administration appear to be, there is almost zero chance that they held the "private" lottery without consulting with the charter board. It's my understanding there were witnesses present at the lottery.

Second, I've checked the DC Code and founding board members isn't defined, thus leaving it subject to interpretation. This is the founding year of the school, so it is a a reasonable interpretation to include in the definition board members who are added this year. I believe someone mentioned at least one other charter that has interpreted the language this way. There's nothing in the statute that says founding board members include only those persons who were members of the Board on the first day of school -- that's your assumption and not clearly the law. A broader, more flexible interpretation may not be the one you prefer, but it's the one the CM Board has taken and it's almost certainly not a violation of the statute.

If I were looking at all of this from the outside (and within the stress of engaging the lottery process as I did last year), I might be more suspicious as well. As a parent who has interacted with many of the people you're accusing, I'm not as quick to jump to conclusions.

[Anonymous]

to 19:54: do you know if indeed new board members with children were added this year, and if said board members were friends/neighbors/whatever of existing founding members? i understand the concept of some 'flexibility' of defining founding members, perhaps, but if you're putting in place a system where friends can handpick friends to be on the board to get their kids into the same PUBLIC school, then I would feel pretty burned.

[Anonymous]

19:54: I'm a parent with a pretty good WL number at CM who may or may not got in now based on this. However, even if I don't get in - I would have suggested you didn't post, you just added fuel to the fire.

Maybe let the school know and they can respond. Unless you know enough about the process officially to comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been trying to decide whether to wade into this conversation....here I go:

I'm a CM parent. Given how thorough and well-connected to other charters the CM board and administration appear to be, there is almost zero chance that they held the "private" lottery without consulting with the charter board. It's my understanding there were witnesses present at the lottery.

Second, I've checked the DC Code and founding board members isn't defined, thus leaving it subject to interpretation. This is the founding year of the school, so it is a a reasonable interpretation to include in the definition board members who are added this year. I believe someone mentioned at least one other charter that has interpreted the language this way. There's nothing in the statute that says founding board members include only those persons who were members of the Board on the first day of school -- that's your assumption and not clearly the law. A broader, more flexible interpretation may not be the one you prefer, but it's the one the CM Board has taken and it's almost certainly not a violation of the statute.

If I were looking at all of this from the outside (and within the stress of engaging the lottery process as I did last year), I might be more suspicious as well. As a parent who has interacted with many of the people you're accusing, I'm not as quick to jump to conclusions.

You may be a CM parent, but you have much to learn about the charter rules on this. I'm on my phone so it's too hard to research here, but search for the "haricots verts" thread, I think that's the last place I saw someone post the official PCSB definition of founding member. There are limits to when in the charter process you can name founding members, only founding members can have kids enroll outside the lottery, and there is even a limit to how many founding kids can get in. And... Because CM is already open, it is too late to declare new founding members.

[Anonymous]

Has Abedin weighed in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been trying to decide whether to wade into this conversation....here I go:

I'm a CM parent. Given how thorough and well-connected to other charters the CM board and administration appear to be, there is almost zero chance that they held the "private" lottery without consulting with the charter board. It's my understanding there were witnesses present at the lottery.

From the PCSB site: The lottery is a system of random selection of applications that identifies students for enrollment and generates the school's waiting list. During the lottery process all completed and accepted applications submitted during the enrollment period are publicly drawn in random order until capacity is reached and the remainder is placed on the waiting list.

I guess you can discuss if having a witness makes it a public event - I think a reasonable person would say no. Given that EVERY OTHER charter has a public event that people are welcomed to attend, I would say that CM's lottery did not meet this standard.