Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A skim noted that this was a rumor and then someone said they were told no public lottery. If this had really happened I am sure the general public would have heard about the PCSB investigating and/or reprimanding the school.

You're funny! Hmmm, wonder why they went ahead and joined the public lottery? Do you really think they didn't get heat from PCSB? But it is absolute fact that at least in 2012 and 2013 it was NOT public. I think they may have done a public one earlier this year for the current school year. Can anyone confirm whether the one held in early 2014 was public or not?

I am the poster you are quoting. I personally attended the lottery in 2014 and it was open to anyone who wanted to attend. As a previous poster wrote, the kids that are in the upper grade at CMI are not the kids you would envision a school cherry picking. They appear to be great kids, but are not who you would assume a school would cherry pick. I did extensive research on all schools I applied to, looking at the annual reports and DCPCSB assessments and I never came across any information regarding this failure to conduct a public lottery. If it had occurred AND if it was not permissible, it would be documented.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A skim noted that this was a rumor and then someone said they were told no public lottery. If this had really happened I am sure the general public would have heard about the PCSB investigating and/or reprimanding the school.

You're funny! Hmmm, wonder why they went ahead and joined the public lottery? Do you really think they didn't get heat from PCSB? But it is absolute fact that at least in 2012 and 2013 it was NOT public. I think they may have done a public one earlier this year for the current school year. Can anyone confirm whether the one held in early 2014 was public or not?

CM's lottery was indeed publicly held earlier this year, and I was one of the handful of families that attended.

Sorry, *we were.*

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A skim noted that this was a rumor and then someone said they were told no public lottery. If this had really happened I am sure the general public would have heard about the PCSB investigating and/or reprimanding the school.

You're funny! Hmmm, wonder why they went ahead and joined the public lottery? Do you really think they didn't get heat from PCSB? But it is absolute fact that at least in 2012 and 2013 it was NOT public. I think they may have done a public one earlier this year for the current school year. Can anyone confirm whether the one held in early 2014 was public or not?

CM's lottery was indeed publicly held earlier this year, and I was one of the handful of families that attended.

It is patently false and unfair to keep stating either as fact or repeating a rumor that CM did not have public lotteries until this year. I applied to the school in 2012 and still have an email from them stating when and where the lottery would be held and that families were invited to attend but not required to do so.

I absolutely do not believe this. You say you have it, then copy and paste it here. You can take out your name and email addy, but copy and paste the whole message or it didn't happen. And I'm another who called the school that year by the way to ask when/where the lottery would be and was told there wasn't a public lottery.

Post the email.

You're funny! Hmmm, wonder why they went ahead and joined the public lottery? Do you really think they didn't get heat from PCSB? But it is absolute fact that at least in 2012 and 2013 it was NOT public. I think they may have done a public one earlier this year for the current school year. Can anyone confirm whether the one held in early 2014 was public or not?

I do not think "absolute fact" means what you think it means.

From the application confirmation email I received when I applied in 2012:

"Dear parent/guardian,

I am writing to confirm that we received your application to enroll your child at Creative Minds International Public Charter School. Thank you for your interest in our program.

We will be in touch with you after the enrollment period closes (after April 9, 2012, or if there is a lottery, after April 17, 2012) to let you know if your child was accepted for the 2012-2013 school year. If accepted, you have until May 14, 2012 to complete and return your child’s enrollment information to save his/her space. If we do not receive the enrollment packet by May 14, 2012, the space will be offered to the next student on our waitlist.

To learn more information about our program or the admissions process, please check our website at www.creativemindspcs.org, or attend an open house.

Open Houses at 3224 16th Street NW Washington, DC 20010;

Wednesday, March 14, 2012 from 6:30-7:30 p.m.

Lottery

The Enrollment Lottery will be held at 3224 16th Street NW Washington, DC 20010 on Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at 7 p.m. Families are invited but not required to attend."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A skim noted that this was a rumor and then someone said they were told no public lottery. If this had really happened I am sure the general public would have heard about the PCSB investigating and/or reprimanding the school.

You're funny! Hmmm, wonder why they went ahead and joined the public lottery? Do you really think they didn't get heat from PCSB? But it is absolute fact that at least in 2012 and 2013 it was NOT public. I think they may have done a public one earlier this year for the current school year. Can anyone confirm whether the one held in early 2014 was public or not?

NP, not involved in CM, no dog in this hunt, just someone making some observations based on my experiences with another charter. 1.) The mere fact that a school joined the common lottery means absolutely nothing. 2.) We've already heard in this thread that families were indeed invited to attend during the selection process. More likely, the cause of disgruntlement is that some families weren't able to attend for reasons of their own or weren't paying attention.

From my experience, most "angry charter parents" are victims of their own actions, not of any school's actions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should get over things from years past. Focus on investigation of current corruption.

This is the most ridiculous comment ever. As if things from years past don't affect the present and future, both fairly and unfairly? The still-recent past is relevant in conversations like this. If CM had been able to do a lottery at all (which they said they did), there's absolutely zero reason they couldn't have made it public. They had space for open houses... they had space for a public lottery (even if they needed to do limited seating). It was a puzzling decision that will always smack of unfair practices, but a year or two into the common lottery and I don't think many will be talking about it in the future.

OK, 01:40. What would you like to see happen? Just more license to gripe online? Open up a spot for your kid? Jail time for administrators?

I'm the PP you're addressing. What I would like to see happen is that schools and their supporters be honest and realistic about how the choices they make affect parents' and the public's perceptions of the school. No one needs "license" to gripe online - in case you haven't noticed, there is nothing stopping griping. But these posts are not griping, they are simply stating facts about a very questionable practice at a school. That practice is not in place now, but a poster said that it had been "debunked" that CM cherry picked students, and most of these posts are just making the point that that is BS, nothing is debunked about it, and when you don't do an open public lottery and you don't post your admit list and wait list publicly either, it just heightens the suspicion - justifiably so - that you are up to something shady.

Your posts trying to make everyone feel crazy for believing CM didn't do a public lottery are not working, mainly because you are dealing with several people who dealt directly with the school on this issue. They didn't do a public lottery, in more than one year. I notice the poster who said they still had the email from CM telling them where/when the public lottery would be has not pasted the email on here. Obviously because they were making it up.

Lastly, as far as wanting to see this review of actual facts lead to opening a spot for my kid? No thanks. We realize we were lucky to get in to CM in a past year given how many people want to get in, but we declined, and we've never thought twice about it. Posters like you remind me that that was the right decision for our family.

Anonymous wrote:It is the previous post. You've been sockpuppeting all along. Please stop and find another thread to hijack.

Different poster, and this thread was not hijacked. You may be new to DCUM, but conversations take their own directions all the time here, and this is relevant to the lottery conversation.

Anonymous wrote:It is the previous post. You've been sockpuppeting all along. Please stop and find another thread to hijack.

No I am 7:03 and I have not posted on this thread before. You can believe what you want but many people believe CM did wrong with the non public lottery.

It is the previous post. You've been sockpuppeting all along. Please stop and find another thread to hijack.

Not PP but I would like to see an official reprimand by the charter board.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should get over things from years past. Focus on investigation of current corruption.

This is the most ridiculous comment ever. As if things from years past don't affect the present and future, both fairly and unfairly? The still-recent past is relevant in conversations like this. If CM had been able to do a lottery at all (which they said they did), there's absolutely zero reason they couldn't have made it public. They had space for open houses... they had space for a public lottery (even if they needed to do limited seating). It was a puzzling decision that will always smack of unfair practices, but a year or two into the common lottery and I don't think many will be talking about it in the future.

OK, 01:40. What would you like to see happen? Just more license to gripe online? Open up a spot for your kid? Jail time for administrators?

Anonymous wrote:A skim noted that this was a rumor and then someone said they were told no public lottery. If this had really happened I am sure the general public would have heard about the PCSB investigating and/or reprimanding the school.

You're funny! Hmmm, wonder why they went ahead and joined the public lottery? Do you really think they didn't get heat from PCSB? But it is absolute fact that at least in 2012 and 2013 it was NOT public. I think they may have done a public one earlier this year for the current school year. Can anyone confirm whether the one held in early 2014 was public or not?

Anonymous wrote:

Not PP, but didn't CM not have public lotteries until this year? If you don't hold public lotteries as mandated by PCSB, how has it been "debunked" that CM wasn't cherry picking?

Not sure what you posters are rambling about, but I was the CM public lottery last year.

Yes, this was in years past. They did not have an open lottery, contrary to law.

It is patently false and unfair to keep stating either as fact or repeating a rumor that CM did not have public lotteries until this year. I applied to the school in 2012 and still have an email from them stating when and where the lottery would be held and that families were invited to attend but not required to do so.

I absolutely do not believe this. You say you have it, then copy and paste it here. You can take out your name and email addy, but copy and paste the whole message or it didn't happen. And I'm another who called the school that year by the way to ask when/where the lottery would be and was told there wasn't a public lottery.

Post the email.

Anonymous wrote:People should get over things from years past. Focus on investigation of current corruption.

This is the most ridiculous comment ever. As if things from years past don't affect the present and future, both fairly and unfairly? The still-recent past is relevant in conversations like this. If CM had been able to do a lottery at all (which they said they did), there's absolutely zero reason they couldn't have made it public. They had space for open houses... they had space for a public lottery (even if they needed to do limited seating). It was a puzzling decision that will always smack of unfair practices, but a year or two into the common lottery and I don't think many will be talking about it in the future.

I can attest that we inquired about attending the lottery at CM and were told that they didn't have a public lottery.