Anonymous wrote:Capital Village financial problems continue. I'm really astonished that they didn't shut it down. They didn't reduce staff as agreed upon in their FCAP! So they now have a Citation of Fiscal Concern. It's basically another step on the road to revocation for non-viability.

Girls Global, which is up for review on June 2, was also discussed in the financial section.

The Hope relinquishment was stated but no discussion. Feels like everything was said in the prior meeting.

What I don't get is that they approved Capital Village to continue at the last meeting in April but the financial target they missed and the actions they failed to do to improve finances were as of March. Was the PCSB able to examine progress toward the FCAP and whether the school was following the steps promised in time for the April review? Or did they only rely on the school's responses during the review hearing to make the decision to continue them?

When you listen to the PCSB staffer talking about the steps they took for truancy, she said they reviewed the data on four or 5 different dates in one month. It sounded like a really robust process. You'd think finances would be the same for a school on an FCAP especially since they were coming up for a significant hearing. The fact that they didn't reduce 140,000 in expenses and didn't have philanthropy to cover their inaction should have surfaced in the review.

Anonymous wrote:This is the best line from the staff's response...

"The sole-member corporation
structure, as proposed, signals a misunderstanding of
board independence. In this case, the sole member is
Mr. Kulinski––also the proposed head of school––
creating a circular governance structure in which he
can appoint or remove the board responsible for
overseeing him."

It's a awful structure but isn't this also the structure of Rocketship?

Capital Village financial problems continue. I'm really astonished that they didn't shut it down. They didn't reduce staff as agreed upon in their FCAP! So they now have a Citation of Fiscal Concern. It's basically another step on the road to revocation for non-viability.

Girls Global, which is up for review on June 2, was also discussed in the financial section.

The Hope relinquishment was stated but no discussion. Feels like everything was said in the prior meeting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mystery Caller Notice of Concern for KIPP?

Holy shit!

Wow!

Happens for many schools. Mystery callers call to ask about services, homelessness, enrollment, etc. What if the normal receptionist or registrar does not answer the phone that day. Lets see this level of openness and accountability for DCPS. It took me seven calls to get my kids ASPEN account activated so he could accept his high school spot.

This is the best line from the staff's response...

"The sole-member corporation
structure, as proposed, signals a misunderstanding of
board independence. In this case, the sole member is
Mr. Kulinski––also the proposed head of school––
creating a circular governance structure in which he
can appoint or remove the board responsible for
overseeing him."

Anonymous wrote:Mystery Caller Notice of Concern for KIPP?

Holy shit!

Wow!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So two "voluntary" closures of failing schools plus one embarrassingly bad application. Quite the week for the "movement" that was once riding high.

An embarrassingly bad application that gets rejected is a good week for the authorizer and for the movement IMO. Two very weak schools closing is also good for the movement even though it's a bad look for the authorizer. Is the authorizer too weak to actually revoke schools or do they just not know how bad off those schools are -- which is what happened with the other school that closed a couple of days before the school year began.

Well no, a good week would involve a strong application and schools not closing. There's no way you can spin a crap application as reflecting well on anyone.

The authorizer is not too weak to revoke, they just kind of chickened out with Hope and placed conditions that were impossible for Hope to meet. I don't know why. Just close it already.

So they're not too weak, they are just chicken? Ok, you say tomato...

Also, not spinning a crap application as good or reflecting well on anyone. Stating very clearly that a crap application that gets rejected is good. Even back in the day when more people believed the movement was the strongest, there were crap applications. They got rejected. The movement was always supposed to be about quality seats and giving people a chance to innovate and propose options. If the seats aren't quality or the proposals are bad, then closures and rejections are part of a strong movement.

Reviewing the meeting video now. It does seem that the current new charter application is the only one for this year. So it's very hard to spin this as yay, such a "strong movement".

The letter from Hope is here: https://www.livebinders.com/b/3649143 It doesn't say much. Just like, sad, bummer. Strong movement!!!

If you are watching this meeting, the you know this application should be rejected. It's a terrible application and their performance in the meeting is equally poor. I don't really understand your point -- do you think this mess passing would be good?

No, I think having one really weak application doesn't indicate a strong movement. It would be worse if it were approved, yes. But a truly strong movement would have-- check this out-- at least one solid application that stands a reasonable chance of approval. Imagine that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So two "voluntary" closures of failing schools plus one embarrassingly bad application. Quite the week for the "movement" that was once riding high.

An embarrassingly bad application that gets rejected is a good week for the authorizer and for the movement IMO. Two very weak schools closing is also good for the movement even though it's a bad look for the authorizer. Is the authorizer too weak to actually revoke schools or do they just not know how bad off those schools are -- which is what happened with the other school that closed a couple of days before the school year began.

Well no, a good week would involve a strong application and schools not closing. There's no way you can spin a crap application as reflecting well on anyone.

The authorizer is not too weak to revoke, they just kind of chickened out with Hope and placed conditions that were impossible for Hope to meet. I don't know why. Just close it already.

So they're not too weak, they are just chicken? Ok, you say tomato...

Also, not spinning a crap application as good or reflecting well on anyone. Stating very clearly that a crap application that gets rejected is good. Even back in the day when more people believed the movement was the strongest, there were crap applications. They got rejected. The movement was always supposed to be about quality seats and giving people a chance to innovate and propose options. If the seats aren't quality or the proposals are bad, then closures and rejections are part of a strong movement.

Reviewing the meeting video now. It does seem that the current new charter application is the only one for this year. So it's very hard to spin this as yay, such a "strong movement".

The letter from Hope is here: https://www.livebinders.com/b/3649143 It doesn't say much. Just like, sad, bummer. Strong movement!!!

If you are watching this meeting, the you know this application should be rejected. It's a terrible application and their performance in the meeting is equally poor. I don't really understand your point -- do you think this mess passing would be good?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So two "voluntary" closures of failing schools plus one embarrassingly bad application. Quite the week for the "movement" that was once riding high.

An embarrassingly bad application that gets rejected is a good week for the authorizer and for the movement IMO. Two very weak schools closing is also good for the movement even though it's a bad look for the authorizer. Is the authorizer too weak to actually revoke schools or do they just not know how bad off those schools are -- which is what happened with the other school that closed a couple of days before the school year began.

Well no, a good week would involve a strong application and schools not closing. There's no way you can spin a crap application as reflecting well on anyone.

The authorizer is not too weak to revoke, they just kind of chickened out with Hope and placed conditions that were impossible for Hope to meet. I don't know why. Just close it already.

So they're not too weak, they are just chicken? Ok, you say tomato...

Also, not spinning a crap application as good or reflecting well on anyone. Stating very clearly that a crap application that gets rejected is good. Even back in the day when more people believed the movement was the strongest, there were crap applications. They got rejected. The movement was always supposed to be about quality seats and giving people a chance to innovate and propose options. If the seats aren't quality or the proposals are bad, then closures and rejections are part of a strong movement.

Reviewing the meeting video now. It does seem that the current new charter application is the only one for this year. So it's very hard to spin this as yay, such a "strong movement".

The letter from Hope is here: https://www.livebinders.com/b/3649143 It doesn't say much. Just like, sad, bummer. Strong movement!!!