SSFS Will Stay Open

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hope they are solvent now.

They are. Thanks for your well wishes.

Yeah…no. I think that’s an oversimplification of the financial situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hope they are solvent now.

They are. Thanks for your well wishes.

Not sure if completely solvent. $15M raised and $22M in debt.

Pledges. Still mostly pledges.

and if mismanagement continues then once the angel donor goes his way, debt will accumulate. People just can't seem to realize that the mismanagement has to end. And with no major changes in the management, I'm only going to say "it's solved" when I actually see the balance sheet that shows me they are bringing in more revenue then they are spending in a sustainable way.

[Anonymous]

There are a lot of people on dcum that don't want this school to succeed. You hop from SSFS forum to SSFS forum since last summers HOS leaving forum to spread your negativity. And no, I am not one of those magical thinkers or someone who doesn't think questions and concerns should be raised. You know who you are. It's obvious. And I will even venture a guess that some of you left the school already in the last year or two. Just be happy with your decision and focus on your new school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hope they are solvent now.

They are. Thanks for your well wishes.

Not sure if completely solvent. $15M raised and $22M in debt.

Pledges. Still mostly pledges.

and if mismanagement continues then once the angel donor goes his way, debt will accumulate. People just can't seem to realize that the mismanagement has to end. And with no major changes in the management, I'm only going to say "it's solved" when I actually see the balance sheet that shows me they are bringing in more revenue then they are spending in a sustainable way.

Who doesn't realize that mismanagement has to end? Seriously? Assertions like this only give you away as a disgruntled former parent. Yeah yeah you can respond and claim you are a current parent or that you care about the school. Not buying it.

[Anonymous]

Nobody should suggest that current parents should no longer be angry. And I personally encourage all parents to stay active and vigilant. But I also think it's important to take stock of what was accomplished in just one month - unprecedented fund raising and donations, board resignations, new by laws, new board members, an enrollment number that exceeded expectations given what happened and a number that might still grow, new leadership that stayed committed, etc. One month people. This all happened in one month. You can still be angry and proud at how we rallied at the same time. I sure am!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should suggest that current parents should no longer be angry. And I personally encourage all parents to stay active and vigilant. But I also think it's important to take stock of what was accomplished in just one month - unprecedented fund raising and donations, board resignations, new by laws, new board members, an enrollment number that exceeded expectations given what happened and a number that might still grow, new leadership that stayed committed, etc. One month people. This all happened in one month. You can still be angry and proud at how we rallied at the same time. I sure am!

I agree! But posts like this really bother many former parents who only feel better if SSFS fails. Watch the responses...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a new family WANT to check out a school that is barely scraping by with all new admin (with the exception of the US head) with no institutional knowledge of the school. There’s SO MUCH risk heading into next year. It’s a complete start over, which SSFS desperately needs, but I would caution ANY FAMILY from being that guinea pig. I can see why an established family is willing to endure that risk, but a new family? I’d wait and see ….

You two need to get off DCUM and out into the world. Your pages of personal fighting is tiresome.

I disagree with your characterization of the school and your perception of the risk. However, the bottom line is that new families are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves.

Yes so no reason to invite them to check us out. “See how great we are!” That the salesman pitch that irritates me (btw I am a parent of the school). I know why I’m staying but no one who doesn’t need to needs the risk. So I don’t need to tell them to check us out. I feel bad saying that to ppl. That’s just me I guess

You still don't get it and that's worrisome for many reasons. We can and should invite all parents to check us out. They can decide FOR THEMSELVES if it's a risk or not. Your suggestion is to do no marketing or admissions events. Forgive me but that's seriously stupid for any school and particularly for a school that does want new families. Move on please. We clearly don't agree and I question how "real" you are.

Clearly our ethics differ. I did a lot of marketing for the school. Right now - just at this moment - in good conscience I can’t. Im not going to tell ppl not to come if they decide to of course. But advertising I can’t do right now. I will fe honest of ppl ask. Yes the school has great teachers. But completely fried admin. A donor that is saving us and I don’t actually know how it looks long term. That’s just the truth. So I can’t advertise. That’s the only distinction I am making. It’s like I also don’t try to get my friends interested in get rich schemes. My sense of risk - makes me not advertise things to other people - that I feel carry a risk. If you’re saying coming to ssfs next year carries no risk then that’s different.

My personal ethics tell me not to invite people to take a risk. When ssfs seemed like no risk, I was at every open house, parent forum, recruitment event that happened. If you don’t want to believe me that’s fine. But I was deeply involved with the PA and was one of the schools true champions. Because I didn’t feel that I was inviting people to take a risk.

I just don’t see zero risk with the school next year. As such I will not advertise. I will not invite. If people solicit information from me I will give them my honest opinion and impressions. But invite them I will not do. Again - I see a non zero risk with the school next year. I just do. If you don’t great. If you don’t find it hard to invite people to take risks that’s your personal preference. Mine is to take risks myself but i will not ask people to do the same simply because “if they walk off a cliff that’s on them” kind of thought process.

A lot of talk about ethics ...on a toxic anonymous forum. Further, your comparison to choosing a school to walking off a cliff is quite over the top. In short, you have given yourself away as a troll.

That’s an odd rationalization. I gave a purposefully over the top example just to make a point that encouraging ppl to do something risky is just not something I’m comfortable doing even if ultimately it’s up to them to take the risk or not. I was not saying that coming to ssfs is jumping off a cliff.

However your defensiveness is odd to me. Instead of attacking on the basis of some nonsensical basis that you didn’t like my analogy example. Tell us why you like advertising a risk to unsuspecting new families? Do you not think that’s a bit disingenuous?

[Anonymous]

Y'all. Stop fighting. Go outside and do something fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Y'all. Stop fighting. Go outside and do something fun.

She says from inside while doing something 'fun' like posting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all. Stop fighting. Go outside and do something fun.

She says from inside while doing something 'fun' like posting.

V mature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all. Stop fighting. Go outside and do something fun.

She says from inside while doing something 'fun' like posting.

V mature.

Projecting?

[Anonymous]

$42 million in debt not $22 million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$42 million in debt not $22 million

Where on Earth did this number come from??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$42 million in debt not $22 million

This is new. Where is this coming from? Not saying it can’t be true. But no one has mentioned anything but the 22 number so far. So you can’t just say that without some explanation.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, it's new as in a new lie. I told you, there are trolls/disgruntled former parents who are annoyed that the school reopened.