Feedback on Bridges PCS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a money game to them- in DC, each child is assigned money (to the school) based on their need level. I sound cynical, but I'm not conjecturing.

I don't think this accurately reflects their approach to special ed - if it did, kids would be getting more - not less - hours, including those with minor needs, rather than the push some parents have experienced this year to decrease services to kids. Not all kids, obviously, but some. But if they wanted to game the system, the way to do it would be to increase the kid's level of need (via IEP hours) without seeking out kids with greater needs - that is, load on services on kids who have minimal needs, to get the monetary gain from DC (since yes, money follows services), without the corresponding "burden" of actual needs at that level. Just noting. Not commenting on anything else in the thread or it's accuracy. But what they're doing is not the way to game the system.

In DC each child is given funding based on a coded level of 1-4. Bridges is now seeking out the children with the greatest needs- highest level- largest amount of money to follow. If they changed a lot of IEPs to increase services, they a) have to front the money for the aides or the hours, etc, and b) it would become obvious that they seem to be adding lots of hours to lots of IEPs. AND adding services does not necessarily change the level, so Bridges is out more money but does not get more in return. They are gaming the system by not allowing students to DECREASE their needs. Several of us with children in self-contained classrooms have gotten push-back and then some about moving our children out. On both campuses.

This is a serious allegation. I hope you are putting your concerns in writing to OSSE and / or the U.S. Department of Education who have oversight over IDEA and implementation of special education programs.

Even if you are leaving the school it is worth reporting.

Yes, but my understanding (not from admin, but from some parents/attorneys familiar as well as our own observations) is this is driven primarily by the lack of inclusion staffing available, because they've had several sped teachers leave and are now struggling to provide inclusion hours. So it's a matter of not wanting to place kids where they can't staff, rather than driven by the money piece. I believe they've also requested some included kids shift to self contained for the same reason.

[Anonymous]

In terms of the meeting this morning, I heard that several salient points were made:
A lot of the attrition (40 percent or so) was in the 1246 Taylor building. That building has not been receiving enough attention from the administration. From clogged toilets to having an administrator who can handle behavior problems that come up, their needs have not been met. There will be more focus on this by moving staff to the 1246 campus.

This fits what one departed staff person told me which is that she thinks things will get better when the campus is in one building. A big part of the problem was that staff didn't k ow who to go to when something was wrong and when they did find someone, the administration was often not responsive. I understand that some administration members have been pushed out in part because of this.

I am very sorry to hear that Ms Neris left without a job. I hope this is a misunderstanding as leaving without a job can be very hard.

My source found the meeting with Kristine somewhat reassuring. She gets that there is a problem and is trying to change things for the better.

As far as Olivia goes, I don't know her well. She's not great at talking to parents but she has kept the school going for a long time and is hiring someone who complements her skills. I have the impression that Krisine is doing great things at Sharpe. So maybe next year things will be better.

[Anonymous]

The attrition at 1244 was higher than 40%, it was well more than half, I forget exact numbers, but it was concentrated there. Though it wasn't clear the breakdown of reasons and timing over there (poor fit versus personal versus "driven out by conditions" - my phrasing on the last one obviously). Apparently some more information will be coming at some point a to who precisely has left/what they did after departures to address staffing issues where relevant?

They did seem to blame much of it (where departures were for stress/unhappiness) on the spread of the school across buildings and inability (or failure) to devote uniform support to all. They seem to have taken some concrete steps to address and also look at why perhaps the unhappiness reached the level it did before they realized the issue. Whether that'll be effective, I don't know. But being able to say, you're right we missed it, we're changing XYZ says something. Also realized/agreed communication about the issue could be improved with parents - I think that's some of what's led to the concern, the lack of communication (I believe you were informed about a departure only if it was a person working directly with your child), which parents find important because, well, it's important, but also because departure not impacting your child directly in terms of staffing still have the ability to affect your child indirectly as resources and time shift to make up for a missing person, and so, as a parent, I'd like to hear about it and be told what their plan is to minimize any impact. A failure to communicate that allows for snowballing conjecture, rumor, etc (some of which may be/have been accurate, certainly). So an improvement on that front would be a big improvement, from my perspective.

They did also note, which I think is important in looking at this for anyone comparing to public school side (as I was), that charters are at will and there are not contracts (in the same way? at all?) like there are in public school systems. As a former teacher, leaving mid year just wasn't done (I mean, I'm sure it was done, but it was not a good plan) - and if people left after year start it was DIRE, because leaving mid contract would sink your opportunities for shifting to another system or within the same system. At will/no contract, less so. So understanding that I'm slightly less alarmed than I was. It does mean people are freer to leave for less than dire working conditions (be it moves, fit, personal issues, whatever, as well as dissatisfaction of a certain level). Doesn't make the departures good, regardless, but adds some perspective.

Having been at similar meetings at imploding daycares etc, it's always difficult to get a read on things - whether the administration is sharing everything, whether they actually understand why people have left (people might understandably say this just isn't working for my personal life because of XYZ when what they really mean is "you people are crazy and this place is a hellhole I can't wait to leave"), etc. I can't say I've ever left one feeling totally confident I have the whole story - but then, stories have multiple sides, and you can't get them all much of the time - but I left feeling more confident they'd identified at least some of the problem and had taken what seemed to be reasonable steps to address it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a money game to them- in DC, each child is assigned money (to the school) based on their need level. I sound cynical, but I'm not conjecturing.

I don't think this accurately reflects their approach to special ed - if it did, kids would be getting more - not less - hours, including those with minor needs, rather than the push some parents have experienced this year to decrease services to kids. Not all kids, obviously, but some. But if they wanted to game the system, the way to do it would be to increase the kid's level of need (via IEP hours) without seeking out kids with greater needs - that is, load on services on kids who have minimal needs, to get the monetary gain from DC (since yes, money follows services), without the corresponding "burden" of actual needs at that level. Just noting. Not commenting on anything else in the thread or it's accuracy. But what they're doing is not the way to game the system.

In DC each child is given funding based on a coded level of 1-4. Bridges is now seeking out the children with the greatest needs- highest level- largest amount of money to follow. If they changed a lot of IEPs to increase services, they a) have to front the money for the aides or the hours, etc, and b) it would become obvious that they seem to be adding lots of hours to lots of IEPs. AND adding services does not necessarily change the level, so Bridges is out more money but does not get more in return. They are gaming the system by not allowing students to DECREASE their needs. Several of us with children in self-contained classrooms have gotten push-back and then some about moving our children out. On both campuses.

This is a serious allegation. I hope you are putting your concerns in writing to OSSE and / or the U.S. Department of Education who have oversight over IDEA and implementation of special education programs.

Even if you are leaving the school it is worth reporting.

Yes, but my understanding (not from admin, but from some parents/attorneys familiar as well as our own observations) is this is driven primarily by the lack of inclusion staffing available, because they've had several sped teachers leave and are now struggling to provide inclusion hours. So it's a matter of not wanting to place kids where they can't staff, rather than driven by the money piece. I believe they've also requested some included kids shift to self contained for the same reason.

That is still illegal. Placements and services must be driven by what the students need (and be delivered in the least restrictive environment) not by staff availability.

[Anonymous]

Is this freaking out parents who ranked Bridges high on their lottery lists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this freaking out parents who ranked Bridges high on their lottery lists?

Yes. I had heard from a friend they had great teachers, and I was lured by the new building. It's also one of the shorter commutes for us. I hope things will be sorted out by the fall. Who is Olivia??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this freaking out parents who ranked Bridges high on their lottery lists?

Yes. I had heard from a friend they had great teachers, and I was lured by the new building. It's also one of the shorter commutes for us. I hope things will be sorted out by the fall. Who is Olivia??

Olivia is one of the founders and is now the Director. She is above the Principal and controls the school. My experience is that she is the biggest problem, and I don't expect she will ever leave, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

So who is the chief operating officer we got an email from this week? I've never heard of him, and he doesn't appear anywhere on the website.

[Anonymous]

Why is Olivia the biggest problem? What are the issues with her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So who is the chief operating officer we got an email from this week? I've never heard of him, and he doesn't appear anywhere on the website.

He's listed on the website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ms. Neris is so disgusted with Bridges that she is leaving without security of another job. She sees it all and knows the truth which Kristine did NOT offer up to parents today at the meeting. She led parents to believe that teachers have left due to commuting issues or better jobs. Lies. All lies. She asked teachers to be on a panel to data they feel heard ands supported by her. Most flat out refused to be on it and ones who did operate in their own bubble.
Bridges may meet needs of gifted kiddos, but their new charter starting next school year is to meet the needs of children with the greatest needs which is sickening because they can't and don't meet the needs of the special needs children they have now. It's a money game to them- in DC, each child is assigned money (to the school) based on their need level. I sound cynical, but I'm not conjecturing.

I'm confused, I thought she had another job and that is why she was leaving?

You're not confused. She got a great job opportunity closer to where she lives and for more money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The attrition at 1244 was higher than 40%, it was well more than half, I forget exact numbers, but it was concentrated there. Though it wasn't clear the breakdown of reasons and timing over there (poor fit versus personal versus "driven out by conditions" - my phrasing on the last one obviously). Apparently some more information will be coming at some point a to who precisely has left/what they did after departures to address staffing issues where relevant?

They did seem to blame much of it (where departures were for stress/unhappiness) on the spread of the school across buildings and inability (or failure) to devote uniform support to all. They seem to have taken some concrete steps to address and also look at why perhaps the unhappiness reached the level it did before they realized the issue. Whether that'll be effective, I don't know. But being able to say, you're right we missed it, we're changing XYZ says something. Also realized/agreed communication about the issue could be improved with parents - I think that's some of what's led to the concern, the lack of communication (I believe you were informed about a departure only if it was a person working directly with your child), which parents find important because, well, it's important, but also because departure not impacting your child directly in terms of staffing still have the ability to affect your child indirectly as resources and time shift to make up for a missing person, and so, as a parent, I'd like to hear about it and be told what their plan is to minimize any impact. A failure to communicate that allows for snowballing conjecture, rumor, etc (some of which may be/have been accurate, certainly). So an improvement on that front would be a big improvement, from my perspective.

They did also note, which I think is important in looking at this for anyone comparing to public school side (as I was), that charters are at will and there are not contracts (in the same way? at all?) like there are in public school systems. As a former teacher, leaving mid year just wasn't done (I mean, I'm sure it was done, but it was not a good plan) - and if people left after year start it was DIRE, because leaving mid contract would sink your opportunities for shifting to another system or within the same system. At will/no contract, less so. So understanding that I'm slightly less alarmed than I was. It does mean people are freer to leave for less than dire working conditions (be it moves, fit, personal issues, whatever, as well as dissatisfaction of a certain level). Doesn't make the departures good, regardless, but adds some perspective.

Having been at similar meetings at imploding daycares etc, it's always difficult to get a read on things - whether the administration is sharing everything, whether they actually understand why people have left (people might understandably say this just isn't working for my personal life because of XYZ when what they really mean is "you people are crazy and this place is a hellhole I can't wait to leave"), etc. I can't say I've ever left one feeling totally confident I have the whole story - but then, stories have multiple sides, and you can't get them all much of the time - but I left feeling more confident they'd identified at least some of the problem and had taken what seemed to be reasonable steps to address it.

Great recap. Pretty much sums up what I heard and how I felt at the end. Perfect? No. Better than other choices for my child? Definitely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So who is the chief operating officer we got an email from this week? I've never heard of him, and he doesn't appear anywhere on the website.

His name is Gary Friend and he came on board this year to support the operations team I heard. Ms. Kristel (the former operations manager) also left this school year after being with Bridges with 8 years to go walk dogs instead of dealing with the craziness at Bridges. I'm not sure what he really does, but he is above all the operations at Bridges and I don't think I've ever met him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ms. Neris is so disgusted with Bridges that she is leaving without security of another job. She sees it all and knows the truth which Kristine did NOT offer up to parents today at the meeting. She led parents to believe that teachers have left due to commuting issues or better jobs. Lies. All lies. She asked teachers to be on a panel to data they feel heard ands supported by her. Most flat out refused to be on it and ones who did operate in their own bubble.
Bridges may meet needs of gifted kiddos, but their new charter starting next school year is to meet the needs of children with the greatest needs which is sickening because they can't and don't meet the needs of the special needs children they have now. It's a money game to them- in DC, each child is assigned money (to the school) based on their need level. I sound cynical, but I'm not conjecturing.

I'm confused, I thought she had another job and that is why she was leaving?

You're not confused. She got a great job opportunity closer to where she lives and for more money.

Regardless of whether she did or not, I'm still sad she's leaving! She was a great part of Bridges! Wish her the absolute best and hope for whatever reason that she is leaving- that she is happy! Both her and Ms. Angela have been super helpful and a pleasure to have at the front desk my years at Bridges!

[Anonymous]

Ms Neris definitely does not have a new job.