Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I volunteered at Crossways ages ago, so I was a bit shocked to read that they were characterized as “shady.” If you look at their publicly available financials, it seems like they are bringing in less money than they need to operate their programs. It also looks like their program costs are relatively modest.

What a lot of people don’t realize about charter funding is that school districts pay the average marginal cost of educating students. A lot of the overhead of running a school or school system is not part of the public funding. Successful charters have big corporate sponsors and/or administrators who are excellent at making grant applications and running fundraising operations.

I don’t doubt that some aspects of quality suffered under financial strain. That said, I am not seeing evidence of malfeasance.

I worked with them professionally. Shady was an understatement. You have no idea what we are talking about.

This!! I won't name names, but an administrator and at least one teacher have no business working with kids.

Please name names. Or at least initials

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I volunteered at Crossways ages ago, so I was a bit shocked to read that they were characterized as “shady.” If you look at their publicly available financials, it seems like they are bringing in less money than they need to operate their programs. It also looks like their program costs are relatively modest.

What a lot of people don’t realize about charter funding is that school districts pay the average marginal cost of educating students. A lot of the overhead of running a school or school system is not part of the public funding. Successful charters have big corporate sponsors and/or administrators who are excellent at making grant applications and running fundraising operations.

I don’t doubt that some aspects of quality suffered under financial strain. That said, I am not seeing evidence of malfeasance.

I worked with them professionally. Shady was an understatement. You have no idea what we are talking about.

This!! I won't name names, but an administrator and at least one teacher have no business working with kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I volunteered at Crossways ages ago, so I was a bit shocked to read that they were characterized as “shady.” If you look at their publicly available financials, it seems like they are bringing in less money than they need to operate their programs. It also looks like their program costs are relatively modest.

What a lot of people don’t realize about charter funding is that school districts pay the average marginal cost of educating students. A lot of the overhead of running a school or school system is not part of the public funding. Successful charters have big corporate sponsors and/or administrators who are excellent at making grant applications and running fundraising operations.

I don’t doubt that some aspects of quality suffered under financial strain. That said, I am not seeing evidence of malfeasance.

I worked with them professionally. Shady was an understatement. You have no idea what we are talking about.

Anonymous wrote:They have a very shady history. Their charter school and independent living program got shut down. They are desperate for income.

Anonymous wrote:I volunteered at Crossways ages ago, so I was a bit shocked to read that they were characterized as “shady.” If you look at their publicly available financials, it seems like they are bringing in less money than they need to operate their programs. It also looks like their program costs are relatively modest.

What a lot of people don’t realize about charter funding is that school districts pay the average marginal cost of educating students. A lot of the overhead of running a school or school system is not part of the public funding. Successful charters have big corporate sponsors and/or administrators who are excellent at making grant applications and running fundraising operations.

I don’t doubt that some aspects of quality suffered under financial strain. That said, I am not seeing evidence of malfeasance.

Anonymous wrote:I volunteered at Crossways ages ago, so I was a bit shocked to read that they were characterized as “shady.” If you look at their publicly available financials, it seems like they are bringing in less money than they need to operate their programs. It also looks like their program costs are relatively modest.

What a lot of people don’t realize about charter funding is that school districts pay the average marginal cost of educating students. A lot of the overhead of running a school or school system is not part of the public funding. Successful charters have big corporate sponsors and/or administrators who are excellent at making grant applications and running fundraising operations.

I don’t doubt that some aspects of quality suffered under financial strain. That said, I am not seeing evidence of malfeasance.

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this the one that MCPS pulled their partnership with due to colossal mismanagement? If you are so incompetent that MCPS notices, you have real problems. There are plenty of good Montessori schools in the area, why pick this one?

Anonymous wrote:They have a very shady history. Their charter school and independent living program got shut down. They are desperate for income.