Anonymous wrote:PP, this is a troll. Just let her go back to her cave...
Anonymous wrote:They are figuring out how to retroactively change waitlist to support incredible #s for these children without the bogus founder status - and since it wasn't public - but they had a witness - they can do it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To the person that emailed the charter school board, did you hear anything back?
I agree that CM and/or the charter school board needs to explain what is going on.
No. No response or any sort of automatic "thank you for your message" email. I agree that a CM rep should be stepping in to explain by now. I'm sure they know about this thread by now.
Anonymous wrote:To the person that emailed the charter school board, did you hear anything back?
I agree that CM and/or the charter school board needs to explain what is going on.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
You're just making stuff up that's convenient for your little narrative as though no-one can tell the difference. 2012-2013 is their opening year. Not "founding" - opening.
I wasn't making anything up. I was asking a question. But by your logic, it would be even more ridiculous to add a founder the year after their opening year. That would make this founder 2 years late.
Anonymous wrote: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.
You're just making stuff up that's convenient for your little narrative as though no-one can tell the difference. 2012-2013 is their opening year. Not "founding" - opening.