Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a parent with two children, one of whom is a special needs kiddo. The suit is crazy. It's based upon unfounded allegations from two years ago. The school investigated it. CPS investigated it. Parents met with staff. Parents met among themselves. We need to get a grip on reality. Bridges has been at it for more than 10 years, serving special needs kiddos better than any other public or public charter school in the city. Only other one I'd consider for my kiddo is Creative Minds but Bridges' inclusion model is way more real world.

So you're accusing the parents of a SN kid of perjury? Wow. Glad to know you are the decider of truth.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a parent with two children, one of whom is a special needs kiddo. The suit is crazy. It's based upon unfounded allegations from two years ago. The school investigated it. CPS investigated it. Parents met with staff. Parents met among themselves. We need to get a grip on reality. Bridges has been at it for more than 10 years, serving special needs kiddos better than any other public or public charter school in the city. Only other one I'd consider for my kiddo is Creative Minds but Bridges' inclusion model is way more real world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a parent with two children, one of whom is a special needs kiddo. The suit is crazy. It's based upon unfounded allegations from two years ago. The school investigated it. CPS investigated it. Parents met with staff. Parents met among themselves. We need to get a grip on reality. Bridges has been at it for more than 10 years, serving special needs kiddos better than any other public or public charter school in the city. Only other one I'd consider for my kiddo is Creative Minds but Bridges' inclusion model is way more real world.

Curious why you think this. Bridges has a self contained classroom for kids with disabilities and CMI doesn’t. By definition the kids in that room are not enjoying “inclusion.” It sounds from the article like that is the classroom Abigail was in. It doesn’t take a huge stretch of the imagination to think that abuse is more likely in a room with only young children with serious disabilities many of whom probably cannot report what is going on.

From what I recall the self-contained classroom is an option for families who want a higher level of care as opposed to full inclusion. There were Level 4 students in both environments, at the parent's discretion.

My kiddos absolutely loved Bridges, as did many of our friends. I'm really shocked and surprised to hear otherwise.

The decision about whether a child at Bridges should be in a self contained classroom is made with parent input, but parents don't have full control over it. It's like everything in a child's IEP -- the school and the family have to agree to it, and if they don't agree they can go through a mediation process or litigate. CMI, from my understanding, has no self contained classrooms, so kids with special needs are in the regular classes, with a full time aide if necessary. This is definitely more inclusive, although it may not be the best environment for the child (depending on the child and their dis/abilities).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a parent with two children, one of whom is a special needs kiddo. The suit is crazy. It's based upon unfounded allegations from two years ago. The school investigated it. CPS investigated it. Parents met with staff. Parents met among themselves. We need to get a grip on reality. Bridges has been at it for more than 10 years, serving special needs kiddos better than any other public or public charter school in the city. Only other one I'd consider for my kiddo is Creative Minds but Bridges' inclusion model is way more real world.

Curious why you think this. Bridges has a self contained classroom for kids with disabilities and CMI doesn’t. By definition the kids in that room are not enjoying “inclusion.” It sounds from the article like that is the classroom Abigail was in. It doesn’t take a huge stretch of the imagination to think that abuse is more likely in a room with only young children with serious disabilities many of whom probably cannot report what is going on.

From what I recall the self-contained classroom is an option for families who want a higher level of care as opposed to full inclusion. There were Level 4 students in both environments, at the parent's discretion.

My kiddos absolutely loved Bridges, as did many of our friends. I'm really shocked and surprised to hear otherwise.

The decision about whether a child at Bridges should be in a self contained classroom is made with parent input, but parents don't have full control over it. It's like everything in a child's IEP -- the school and the family have to agree to it, and if they don't agree they can go through a mediation process or litigate. CMI, from my understanding, has no self contained classrooms, so kids with special needs are in the regular classes, with a full time aide if necessary. This is definitely more inclusive, although it may not be the best environment for the child (depending on the child and their dis/abilities).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a parent with two children, one of whom is a special needs kiddo. The suit is crazy. It's based upon unfounded allegations from two years ago. The school investigated it. CPS investigated it. Parents met with staff. Parents met among themselves. We need to get a grip on reality. Bridges has been at it for more than 10 years, serving special needs kiddos better than any other public or public charter school in the city. Only other one I'd consider for my kiddo is Creative Minds but Bridges' inclusion model is way more real world.

Curious why you think this. Bridges has a self contained classroom for kids with disabilities and CMI doesn’t. By definition the kids in that room are not enjoying “inclusion.” It sounds from the article like that is the classroom Abigail was in. It doesn’t take a huge stretch of the imagination to think that abuse is more likely in a room with only young children with serious disabilities many of whom probably cannot report what is going on.

From what I recall the self-contained classroom is an option for families who want a higher level of care as opposed to full inclusion. There were Level 4 students in both environments, at the parent's discretion.

My kiddos absolutely loved Bridges, as did many of our friends. I'm really shocked and surprised to hear otherwise.

Anonymous wrote: I believe the claims to be true and feel a great deal of respect for that family to not be bullied into silence and fight to protect other kids who may not have advocates outside of the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a parent with two children, one of whom is a special needs kiddo. The suit is crazy. It's based upon unfounded allegations from two years ago. The school investigated it. CPS investigated it. Parents met with staff. Parents met among themselves. We need to get a grip on reality. Bridges has been at it for more than 10 years, serving special needs kiddos better than any other public or public charter school in the city. Only other one I'd consider for my kiddo is Creative Minds but Bridges' inclusion model is way more real world.

Curious why you think this. Bridges has a self contained classroom for kids with disabilities and CMI doesn’t. By definition the kids in that room are not enjoying “inclusion.” It sounds from the article like that is the classroom Abigail was in. It doesn’t take a huge stretch of the imagination to think that abuse is more likely in a room with only young children with serious disabilities many of whom probably cannot report what is going on.

From what I recall the self-contained classroom is an option for families who want a higher level of care as opposed to full inclusion. There were Level 4 students in both environments, at the parent's discretion.

My kiddos absolutely loved Bridges, as did many of our friends. I'm really shocked and surprised to hear otherwise.

CMI is all hype. Their Sped program, based on my experience, was notngood at all with barely qualified teachers. CMI appears to be into special ed for the money.

Ditto our positive experience. The only option for us that might be as good for our son is a $40,000 per year private school, which makes no sense given Bridges (and Creative Minds).

we had an absolutely horrendous experience at Bridges in PK3. Bridges denied my DS even a 504 plan, which was desperately needed. due to lack of special support, plus a revolving door of teachers, DS devolved quickly during the first couple of months at school and at one point became hysterical in the classroom. obviously he was removed from the classroom (which i understand), but nobody could/would tell me who took him out of the classroom, where they took him, and why they insisted that he change his clothes/give up all security blankets instead of finding out WHY he was acting like this/why he needed all security blankets and favorite tshirt/what was going on with him. i would not have even known that happened that day if i hadn't realized that he was wearing different clothes and asked DS, then his teacher what happened. we pulled him out soon thereafter. it has been 3+ years since that time and i am still angry with how he fell through the cracks and how the school did not properly account for his whereabouts. FWIW we are at another (non special ed) charter school, now in 1st grade, with a proper 504 plan in place, and DS is thriving, and i never have to worry about the school knowing/not knowing where either of my children (i have 2) are during the school day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a parent with two children, one of whom is a special needs kiddo. The suit is crazy. It's based upon unfounded allegations from two years ago. The school investigated it. CPS investigated it. Parents met with staff. Parents met among themselves. We need to get a grip on reality. Bridges has been at it for more than 10 years, serving special needs kiddos better than any other public or public charter school in the city. Only other one I'd consider for my kiddo is Creative Minds but Bridges' inclusion model is way more real world.

Curious why you think this. Bridges has a self contained classroom for kids with disabilities and CMI doesn’t. By definition the kids in that room are not enjoying “inclusion.” It sounds from the article like that is the classroom Abigail was in. It doesn’t take a huge stretch of the imagination to think that abuse is more likely in a room with only young children with serious disabilities many of whom probably cannot report what is going on.

From what I recall the self-contained classroom is an option for families who want a higher level of care as opposed to full inclusion. There were Level 4 students in both environments, at the parent's discretion.

My kiddos absolutely loved Bridges, as did many of our friends. I'm really shocked and surprised to hear otherwise.

Ditto our positive experience. The only option for us that might be as good for our son is a $40,000 per year private school, which makes no sense given Bridges (and Creative Minds).

we had an absolutely horrendous experience at Bridges in PK3. Bridges denied my DS even a 504 plan, which was desperately needed. due to lack of special support, plus a revolving door of teachers, DS devolved quickly during the first couple of months at school and at one point became hysterical in the classroom. obviously he was removed from the classroom (which i understand), but nobody could/would tell me who took him out of the classroom, where they took him, and why they insisted that he change his clothes/give up all security blankets instead of finding out WHY he was acting like this/why he needed all security blankets and favorite tshirt/what was going on with him. i would not have even known that happened that day if i hadn't realized that he was wearing different clothes and asked DS, then his teacher what happened. we pulled him out soon thereafter. it has been 3+ years since that time and i am still angry with how he fell through the cracks and how the school did not properly account for his whereabouts. FWIW we are at another (non special ed) charter school, now in 1st grade, with a proper 504 plan in place, and DS is thriving, and i never have to worry about the school knowing/not knowing where either of my children (i have 2) are during the school day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a parent with two children, one of whom is a special needs kiddo. The suit is crazy. It's based upon unfounded allegations from two years ago. The school investigated it. CPS investigated it. Parents met with staff. Parents met among themselves. We need to get a grip on reality. Bridges has been at it for more than 10 years, serving special needs kiddos better than any other public or public charter school in the city. Only other one I'd consider for my kiddo is Creative Minds but Bridges' inclusion model is way more real world.

Curious why you think this. Bridges has a self contained classroom for kids with disabilities and CMI doesn’t. By definition the kids in that room are not enjoying “inclusion.” It sounds from the article like that is the classroom Abigail was in. It doesn’t take a huge stretch of the imagination to think that abuse is more likely in a room with only young children with serious disabilities many of whom probably cannot report what is going on.

From what I recall the self-contained classroom is an option for families who want a higher level of care as opposed to full inclusion. There were Level 4 students in both environments, at the parent's discretion.

My kiddos absolutely loved Bridges, as did many of our friends. I'm really shocked and surprised to hear otherwise.

Ditto our positive experience. The only option for us that might be as good for our son is a $40,000 per year private school, which makes no sense given Bridges (and Creative Minds).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a parent with two children, one of whom is a special needs kiddo. The suit is crazy. It's based upon unfounded allegations from two years ago. The school investigated it. CPS investigated it. Parents met with staff. Parents met among themselves. We need to get a grip on reality. Bridges has been at it for more than 10 years, serving special needs kiddos better than any other public or public charter school in the city. Only other one I'd consider for my kiddo is Creative Minds but Bridges' inclusion model is way more real world.

Curious why you think this. Bridges has a self contained classroom for kids with disabilities and CMI doesn’t. By definition the kids in that room are not enjoying “inclusion.” It sounds from the article like that is the classroom Abigail was in. It doesn’t take a huge stretch of the imagination to think that abuse is more likely in a room with only young children with serious disabilities many of whom probably cannot report what is going on.

From what I recall the self-contained classroom is an option for families who want a higher level of care as opposed to full inclusion. There were Level 4 students in both environments, at the parent's discretion.

My kiddos absolutely loved Bridges, as did many of our friends. I'm really shocked and surprised to hear otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:

Curious why you think this. Bridges has a self contained classroom for kids with disabilities and CMI doesn’t. By definition the kids in that room are not enjoying “inclusion.” It sounds from the article like that is the classroom Abigail was in. It doesn’t take a huge stretch of the imagination to think that abuse is more likely in a room with only young children with serious disabilities many of whom probably cannot report what is going on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a parent with two children, one of whom is a special needs kiddo. The suit is crazy. It's based upon unfounded allegations from two years ago. The school investigated it. CPS investigated it. Parents met with staff. Parents met among themselves. We need to get a grip on reality. Bridges has been at it for more than 10 years, serving special needs kiddos better than any other public or public charter school in the city. Only other one I'd consider for my kiddo is Creative Minds but Bridges' inclusion model is way more real world.

Curious why you think this. Bridges has a self contained classroom for kids with disabilities and CMI doesn’t. By definition the kids in that room are not enjoying “inclusion.” It sounds from the article like that is the classroom Abigail was in. It doesn’t take a huge stretch of the imagination to think that abuse is more likely in a room with only young children with serious disabilities many of whom probably cannot report what is going on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a parent with two children, one of whom is a special needs kiddo. The suit is crazy. It's based upon unfounded allegations from two years ago. The school investigated it. CPS investigated it. Parents met with staff. Parents met among themselves. We need to get a grip on reality. Bridges has been at it for more than 10 years, serving special needs kiddos better than any other public or public charter school in the city. Only other one I'd consider for my kiddo is Creative Minds but Bridges' inclusion model is way more real world.

Curious why you think this. Bridges has a self contained classroom for kids with disabilities and CMI doesn’t. By definition the kids in that room are not enjoying “inclusion.” It sounds from the article like that is the classroom Abigail was in. It doesn’t take a huge stretch of the imagination to think that abuse is more likely in a room with only young children with serious disabilities many of whom probably cannot report what is going on.

Way more oversight? https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/article/20984282/does-dc-charter-schools-autonomy-come-at-the-cost-of-public-accountability

This oversight problem was highlighted in 2013, when D.C.’s attorney general Irvin Nathan sued three former Options Public Charter School leaders for laundering over $3 million into two for-profit companies they owned. Nathan filed a second suit several months later against the founder of Community Academy Public Charter for allegedly diverting more than $13 million into a shell management company. But both schools had passed the PCSB’s financial inspection, with the charter board concluding that Options and Community Academy had demonstrated “no patterns of fiscal mismanagement.”