Anonymous wrote:I did think it was a little odd that the CA was separating from the school and forming a registered nonprofit (which allows them to control bank accounts, and therefore threaten the board/admin with withholding fundraising). Is this common? To me, that already indicated that there was mistrust and a potential showdown. So now it's not surprising that the CA is in this position, even if they do have good points. Which I am not totally sure of since the letter isn't posted here.

no this is common.

I did think it was a little odd that the CA was separating from the school and forming a registered nonprofit (which allows them to control bank accounts, and therefore threaten the board/admin with withholding fundraising). Is this common? To me, that already indicated that there was mistrust and a potential showdown. So now it's not surprising that the CA is in this position, even if they do have good points. Which I am not totally sure of since the letter isn't posted here.

Teachers received contracts for the next year today. Watch and see who gets invited back. I bet there will be a purge. And because SSMA waited until the last minute, it's too late for teachers to find another job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the Board's letter is all that draconian. Parents (at all schools) need to stop managing their children's teachers and school administration. They do not and should not report to you.

It's tone that's the problem. As a parent, you better be involved in your child's education. Actually boards have a fiduciary duty to all stake holders.

As far as I know, the fiduciary duty of a charter school board member is to the PCSB as authorizer and the DC government per the non-profit operating laws. Boards should certainly be in communication with parents and have an ethical obligation to do so, but be clear about what the law actually says they need to do. I might not be right about this, so feel free to cite a law or regulation that speaks to the relationship between a school board and parents of children at the school- I think the law is pretty much silent other than the 2 board members who must be parents.

You are correct. The Board also has a responsibility to the PCSB to achieve its academic targets.

Current SSMA family.

While I don’t love the Board’s letter to the SSMACA, I think it is incredibly unproductive to post it here on DCUM.

If you want parents to see it, post it on the FB group, along with the other updates and discussions.

Current PK4 parent at SSMA here. I definitely have my concerns about leadership, and find this back and forth with the board/CA disheartening, but I'm also hopeful the school will be stronger after all of this. The school has a lot of potential and a lot of people who care deeply about seeing it succeed. My kid is thriving there. We are happy to go back for K next year.

Anonymous wrote:+1 the tone is a huge problem. The parent association lists concerns shared by some percentage of the parents and the Board's response is basically, how dare you, and a threat to decertify them. Either way they will still be parents at the school. They have a vested interest. If the Board thinks it is addressing everything appropriately and the parents just need to trust the board then say that. The defensiveness is exactly another example of the problem parents are complaining about in saying the is no transparency and no interest in the parents' concerns. At the very least, the board should be employing PR strategies and trying to allay concerns and makes everyone feel heard even if it's lip service. That this is their written response, the best they can do to address the situation is a huge FU.

This is very good and 100% right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the Board's letter is all that draconian. Parents (at all schools) need to stop managing their children's teachers and school administration. They do not and should not report to you.

It's tone that's the problem. As a parent, you better be involved in your child's education. Actually boards have a fiduciary duty to all stake holders.

As far as I know, the fiduciary duty of a charter school board member is to the PCSB as authorizer and the DC government per the non-profit operating laws. Boards should certainly be in communication with parents and have an ethical obligation to do so, but be clear about what the law actually says they need to do. I might not be right about this, so feel free to cite a law or regulation that speaks to the relationship between a school board and parents of children at the school- I think the law is pretty much silent other than the 2 board members who must be parents.

+1 the tone is a huge problem. The parent association lists concerns shared by some percentage of the parents and the Board's response is basically, how dare you, and a threat to decertify them. Either way they will still be parents at the school. They have a vested interest. If the Board thinks it is addressing everything appropriately and the parents just need to trust the board then say that. The defensiveness is exactly another example of the problem parents are complaining about in saying the is no transparency and no interest in the parents' concerns. At the very least, the board should be employing PR strategies and trying to allay concerns and makes everyone feel heard even if it's lip service. That this is their written response, the best they can do to address the situation is a huge FU.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the Board's letter is all that draconian. Parents (at all schools) need to stop managing their children's teachers and school administration. They do not and should not report to you.

It's tone that's the problem. As a parent, you better be involved in your child's education. Actually boards have a fiduciary duty to all stake holders.

I suspect what’s happening is that the board is surprised that there was any push-back at all after the principal was fired; there hasn’t been any reaction like this in the past after personnel moves; my guess is that since this is largely out of nowhere (from their perspective), they’re assuming it’s a small faction of parents that has grabbed the microphone and they’re acting accordingly. Even if the community association overreached a bit in their letter to the board (I suspect what they’re pushing back on is the half-suggestion/half direction that the board “report back” to the letter within a certain number of days), I think it’s a good thing that they’re becoming more than just a fundraising outfit; it’s always good to have a third voice in the room, even if that voice is (appriopriately) purely advisory.

While her actions here were dumb, I have, probably, a more sympathetic view of the ED and her actions here than most (a leader should be able to pick their team - if that results in too much turnover/a bad reputation, then the board should step in), but it’s only healthy for the school to have more dialogue between the parent community and senior leadership.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the Board's letter is all that draconian. Parents (at all schools) need to stop managing their children's teachers and school administration. They do not and should not report to you.

depends on the letter the CA sent. If they raised issues with the ED leadership and other problems at the school, then the blowback was too defensive. If they called for the ED to be fired, then it is more understandable.

I think this conversation is helpful for all parents at schools trying to find a balance between trusting the adminsitration and accepting the admin's decisions and advocating for the changes they want to see. It is the place our kids spend the majority of their waking life, so the balance can be hard to find. But thank you for sharing even if its painful.

I don't think the Board's letter is all that draconian. Parents (at all schools) need to stop managing their children's teachers and school administration. They do not and should not report to you.

Sorry - that was unclear.

Only $40,000 of the $4.7M budget was expected to come from private donations.

Even if the CA raised $200K per year, that would be just 4.2% of the total.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The board sent a letter to the general parent community but then sent a separate nastygram to the community association leadership.

Watching this unfold is horrifying. We need an entirely new board and a new executive director.

You need to find a new school. The above isn't going to happen.

Sounds like you made a good faith attempt, but when you come at the king, you best not miss. The Board has chosen sides, and it is sticking with the ED.

You can't just find a new school. You can lottery, but that could take 3 or 4 years. You could go to your neighborhood school but won't till instruction quality or safety issues fall below levels at the neighborhood school. Voting with yoru feet isn't an option unless you have enough money to move to a good school district.

But abosuetly, the CA should raise tons of money and lavish it where they see fit. Or stop raising money and parents stop donating. voting with your wallet is more doable.

What do the CA bylaws say? The school may have a point that the CA has exceeded its legal mandate, and the school can essentially de-certify them.

De-certify the only arm that has raised money and resources? That would be in line with their thought process. This is about the Board trying to protect their friend. They don't care about the kids and all the issues raised. They have indicated they will even grace us with their presence at the stepping up ceremony this year.

How much money have you actually raised?

SSMA's approved budget for 17-18 was $4.7M. All but $40,000 (<1%)was expected to come from donations; the rest is from the per pupil allowance, the facility fund and other city and federal payments. They don't really need your donations to keep the doors open. http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/report/2016-2017%20Annual%20Report%28GKYO%29%28ShininStarsMontesAcademPCS%29.pdf