Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the CM parent who posted (and others reading this thread):

When you say that it's the "founding year" this year, what does that mean? Do I not understand the process? CM was open last year. School started August 27, 2012. Wouldn't the 2012-2013 school year be the "founding year"?

The "founding" is an event that takes place on a day, not over the course of a year.

Harvard (the nation's oldest university) celebrates the date of its founding, September 8th, 1836. Considering that the Massachusetts Assembly met on the 8th to vote to fund the school, but actually completed the vote on October 28th, the school has still managed to establish its founding date. Even though the calendar changed from Julian dates to Gregorian dates, the school managed to arrive at the date of its founding.

CM should be able to do the same.

Founding happens on a date, not a year.

Well, for what it's worth, Harvard was founded in 1636, not 1836.

Were they providing education in 1635, though? I do not believe so.

That is what would be going on at CM. Logic would dictate that their "founding year" would be the first year they were operating as an educational institution - which would be the 2012-2013 school year that is soon to be concluded.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the CM parent who posted (and others reading this thread):

When you say that it's the "founding year" this year, what does that mean? Do I not understand the process? CM was open last year. School started August 27, 2012. Wouldn't the 2012-2013 school year be the "founding year"?

The "founding" is an event that takes place on a day, not over the course of a year.

Harvard (the nation's oldest university) celebrates the date of its founding, September 8th, 1836. Considering that the Massachusetts Assembly met on the 8th to vote to fund the school, but actually completed the vote on October 28th, the school has still managed to establish its founding date. Even though the calendar changed from Julian dates to Gregorian dates, the school managed to arrive at the date of its founding.

CM should be able to do the same.

Founding happens on a date, not a year.

Well, for what it's worth, Harvard was founded in 1636, not 1836.

Were they providing education in 1635, though? I do not believe so.

That is what would be going on at CM. Logic would dictate that their "founding year" would be the first year they were operating as an educational institution - which would be the 2012-2013 school year that is soon to be concluded.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the CM parent who posted (and others reading this thread):

When you say that it's the "founding year" this year, what does that mean? Do I not understand the process? CM was open last year. School started August 27, 2012. Wouldn't the 2012-2013 school year be the "founding year"?

The "founding" is an event that takes place on a day, not over the course of a year.

Harvard (the nation's oldest university) celebrates the date of its founding, September 8th, 1836. Considering that the Massachusetts Assembly met on the 8th to vote to fund the school, but actually completed the vote on October 28th, the school has still managed to establish its founding date. Even though the calendar changed from Julian dates to Gregorian dates, the school managed to arrive at the date of its founding.

CM should be able to do the same.

Founding happens on a date, not a year.

Anonymous wrote:To the CM parent who posted (and others reading this thread):

When you say that it's the "founding year" this year, what does that mean? Do I not understand the process? CM was open last year. School started August 27, 2012. Wouldn't the 2012-2013 school year be the "founding year"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harpies! This is a nasty display of a witch hunt...are you all the same ones who started the vitriol against YY??? I have never seen such rabid behavior about something one person was supposedly told. Until this alleged wrong has been proven to be true, go back to your perches and get a life! If this is how chartered parents behave, I don't want anything to do them. We'll stay where we are, thanks...

Why so? Because the conversation continues? (and what the hell does this have to do with YY??)

Earlier in this thread, I was one of the voices defending the school, pointing out that allegations are merely that. Rumors, not proof. But more detail is emerging as the thread evolves and now I find myself thinking this process looks very opaque when it is designed to be transparent.

It really raises the level of scepticism that the school decided to hold a closed lottery. And because no-one expressed interest in a public one? Come on, don't treat us like idiots. That smells very, very bad.

Plus, there's some specificity coming out about the "new founders" that no longer sound like rumor-mongering. Look, the school's booster(s) can say until they're blue in the face that it's the founding year, but that's BS and we all know it. The school has been founded. The charter is the document upon which is was founded, once it was voted to be approved by the PCSB. It continues to grow, yes, but it does not continue to be founded. That event is a bright line and it has already occurred. It's very, very troubling that people are trying to fudge their way around this. It's like a birth certificate, not a gray area - the names are on the charter application as founders or they are not.

Anonymous wrote:Harpies! This is a nasty display of a witch hunt...are you all the same ones who started the vitriol against YY??? I have never seen such rabid behavior about something one person was supposedly told. Until this alleged wrong has been proven to be true, go back to your perches and get a life! If this is how chartered parents behave, I don't want anything to do them. We'll stay where we are, thanks...

Anonymous wrote:Harpies! This is a nasty display of a witch hunt...are you all the same ones who started the vitriol against YY??? I have never seen such rabid behavior about something one person was supposedly told. Until this alleged wrong has been proven to be true, go back to your perches and get a life! If this is how chartered parents behave, I don't want anything to do them. We'll stay where we are, thanks...

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.