Outplacement directors that speak in code or total silence; can anyone translate ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Facile parables and ranching metaphors aside, I think the closest analogy is with college exmissions.

And that itself is symptomatic of a really screwed-up POV.

OK, why don't you elaborate instead of insulting people. In fact, I can't tell if you're siding with the facile parables/ranching metaphors, or with the college exmissions analogy. It's just a random insult, which is useless to everybody.

[Anonymous]

Not prone to self-reflection, are you?

If you think about it, the statement has content. If you don't, it doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not prone to self-reflection, are you?

If you think about it, the statement has content. If you don't, it doesn't.

You really have nothing to say, do you? Funny, I have this picture in my head of a frustrated private school OD person who is banging her head against her desk and really, really hoping this thread would die. Why don't you provide some substance to prove me wrong?

Here's a prompt for you, to get you going: why don't you describe how your kid went through K-6 exmissions (because I'm going to assume this is true) in a DC-area private (because I'm going to assume this is true), and how you didn't see any OD manipulations for your kid or for any other kid in your kid's wide range of classmates (let's assume this is true, too). I think I can guess what you're going to write: you had a beautiful experience with your OD as butterflies and stars drifted through the sky and all the planets aligned. But at least writing about this will help you move beyond insults. Also, in the process you will be able to prove for all your fans on this thread that: (a) you actually have a kid who went through the exmissions process in a private school K-6 or K-8, (b) you are actually in DC and not in Des Moines, and (c) there's a possibility you're not in OD.

[Anonymous]

No, what I'm going to write is that it's not surprising that people who approach the world the way you do have experiences that lead them into bitter and unproductive interactions with other people. And that anyone inclined to take your advice should ask herself if this is the road she wants to travel down.

Yes, you can decide that the OD is out to get you and that your best approach toward dealing with this person is to lie in wait until Spring and hope to get him or her fired. And then you can repeat this performance when your kid is applying to colleges. Along the way, you can decide that every classmate who gets something your kid wanted and didn't get must have a parent who had an in. And that every person who took a school administrator's advice is either a sucker or a suck-up.

But there are a host of more productive and more sane ways to approach a situation where someone has been slow to return a couple of emails. A number have already been pointed out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, what I'm going to write is that it's not surprising that people who approach the world the way you do have experiences that lead them into bitter and unproductive interactions with other people. And that anyone inclined to take your advice should ask herself if this is the road she wants to travel down.

Yes, you can decide that the OD is out to get you and that your best approach toward dealing with this person is to lie in wait until Spring and hope to get him or her fired. And then you can repeat this performance when your kid is applying to colleges. Along the way, you can decide that every classmate who gets something your kid wanted and didn't get must have a parent who had an in. And that every person who took a school administrator's advice is either a sucker or a suck-up.

But there are a host of more productive and more sane ways to approach a situation where someone has been slow to return a couple of emails. A number have already been pointed out.

Bwahahaha! So no kid who ever went through K-6 exmissions, huh?

I need to point out, yet again, that you're grossly distorting the positions of the several PPs here who have written about their actual experiences. I've seen a number of posts, including my own, that tell people to work with their ODs, listen, step back a bit, and hope for the best.

But it would be naive, and risky, to assume that the OD is 100% working for you. There are some other results the OP wants besides your kid's results. So when you step back, you need to consider the school's interests in this too. We can quibble about whether it's 50% in your interest or 90% in your interest. But it's not that the school is working 0% for families (as you've grossly mischaracterized our position) or 100% for families (which seems to be your position).

(And because I have to say it, again: my kid got into a Big 2, and so I'm not bitter or jealous as you wrote in your typically insulting post. Nor am I the poster who said to wait to spring to get the OD fired - you're confusing posters who disagree with you.)

[Anonymous]

Extremism aside, I suspect the truth of the matter lies somewhere in the middle.

ODs are trying to balance a number of variables: having most families happy with their next school, having the secondary schools happy with the primary school, and finding a good fit between each student and their secondary school. If too many parents leave feeling that the OD didn't help them (or actually hurt them), that is bad. If too many secondary schools end up dissatisfied with the kids who come from a given primary school, or thinking that the OD is not helpful to them in finding kids who will be successful, that is bad. If too many kids end up at schools which are poor fits, that is bad.

So I would never assume that an OD is 100% "in the corner" of a particular child, particularly if "in our corner" is defined as "doing exactly what we want". But I also would not assume that the OD has some hidden agenda and will in no way give parents good advice or support the child in their application.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Extremism aside, I suspect the truth of the matter lies somewhere in the middle.

ODs are trying to balance a number of variables: having most families happy with their next school, having the secondary schools happy with the primary school, and finding a good fit between each student and their secondary school. If too many parents leave feeling that the OD didn't help them (or actually hurt them), that is bad. If too many secondary schools end up dissatisfied with the kids who come from a given primary school, or thinking that the OD is not helpful to them in finding kids who will be successful, that is bad. If too many kids end up at schools which are poor fits, that is bad.

So I would never assume that an OD is 100% "in the corner" of a particular child, particularly if "in our corner" is defined as "doing exactly what we want". But I also would not assume that the OD has some hidden agenda and will in no way give parents good advice or support the child in their application.

If you're 10:15, I think we're closer together than we initially thought -- I'm 10:04/10:31. Obviously I can't speak for the other posters here.

But IMO, I think it's fair to say your school's OD is working for your interests somewhere between 50-90% of the time. I actually have no sense about where in the range it falls. Obviously it would differ from school to school. And equally obviously, it would depend if yours is the corporate lawyer's straight-A kid they want to send to the elite school, or not. So picking a number (75%? 92%?) seems like a totally fruitless exercise.

All of this is consistent with the advice to step back, listen to your OD, and also consider what else the OD is balancing. Questioning your OD even a tiny bit doesn't mean you're paranoid or that you have a bitter outlook in life. It just means you're prudent as opposed to naive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Extremism aside, I suspect the truth of the matter lies somewhere in the middle.

ODs are trying to balance a number of variables: having most families happy with their next school, having the secondary schools happy with the primary school, and finding a good fit between each student and their secondary school. If too many parents leave feeling that the OD didn't help them (or actually hurt them), that is bad. If too many secondary schools end up dissatisfied with the kids who come from a given primary school, or thinking that the OD is not helpful to them in finding kids who will be successful, that is bad. If too many kids end up at schools which are poor fits, that is bad.

So I would never assume that an OD is 100% "in the corner" of a particular child, particularly if "in our corner" is defined as "doing exactly what we want". But I also would not assume that the OD has some hidden agenda and will in no way give parents good advice or support the child in their application.

But don't the first two bolded bits constitute a "hidden agenda" of sorts? This is what people on this thread have been saying all along. Or perhaps you're arguing that it's not "hidden" in the sense that it's general knowledge they do this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extremism aside, I suspect the truth of the matter lies somewhere in the middle.

ODs are trying to balance a number of variables: having most families happy with their next school, having the secondary schools happy with the primary school, and finding a good fit between each student and their secondary school. If too many parents leave feeling that the OD didn't help them (or actually hurt them), that is bad. If too many secondary schools end up dissatisfied with the kids who come from a given primary school, or thinking that the OD is not helpful to them in finding kids who will be successful, that is bad. If too many kids end up at schools which are poor fits, that is bad.

So I would never assume that an OD is 100% "in the corner" of a particular child, particularly if "in our corner" is defined as "doing exactly what we want". But I also would not assume that the OD has some hidden agenda and will in no way give parents good advice or support the child in their application.

But don't the first two bolded bits constitute a "hidden agenda" of sorts? This is what people on this thread have been saying all along. Or perhaps you're arguing that it's not "hidden" in the sense that it's general knowledge they do this?

I guess I'm arguing that it's not really "hidden", in that it's pretty logical that this would happen. But also, that there's a difference between an agenda which may differ from the parents', and an agenda which is somehow secretive and inherently unfair, or that is favoring other children over yours.

[Anonymous]

Um, have you women thought about going back to the workplace or increasing your volunteer commitments outside of DC's schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extremism aside, I suspect the truth of the matter lies somewhere in the middle.

ODs are trying to balance a number of variables: having most families happy with their next school, having the secondary schools happy with the primary school, and finding a good fit between each student and their secondary school. If too many parents leave feeling that the OD didn't help them (or actually hurt them), that is bad. If too many secondary schools end up dissatisfied with the kids who come from a given primary school, or thinking that the OD is not helpful to them in finding kids who will be successful, that is bad. If too many kids end up at schools which are poor fits, that is bad.

So I would never assume that an OD is 100% "in the corner" of a particular child, particularly if "in our corner" is defined as "doing exactly what we want". But I also would not assume that the OD has some hidden agenda and will in no way give parents good advice or support the child in their application.

If you're 10:15, I think we're closer together than we initially thought -- I'm 10:04/10:31.

No, that particular post wasn't from 10:15 (aka me), but I've made each of the points she's made elsewhere in this thread. And, FWIW, I'm not the poster you've been trading insults with for pages. I don't think anyone has argued that you shouldn't question an OD (in fact, it seems like "listening politely" to use the OP's language may have been part of the problem in this scenario -- at least to the extent that it means not interrupting or discussing but blowing off the other person's opinion) or that an OD is only looking after your DC's interests (as you understand them).

The perception of "extremism" come from an abrasive, straw-man style of argumentation and a refusal to acknowledge nuance -- as well as from the constructions of various composites based on mistaken assumptions about which anonymous posters are saying what. I've seen my own posts cited as examples on both sides of this issue.

At any rate, I think that, at a substantive level, this discussion played itself out a couple of pages ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extremism aside, I suspect the truth of the matter lies somewhere in the middle.

ODs are trying to balance a number of variables: having most families happy with their next school, having the secondary schools happy with the primary school, and finding a good fit between each student and their secondary school. If too many parents leave feeling that the OD didn't help them (or actually hurt them), that is bad. If too many secondary schools end up dissatisfied with the kids who come from a given primary school, or thinking that the OD is not helpful to them in finding kids who will be successful, that is bad. If too many kids end up at schools which are poor fits, that is bad.

So I would never assume that an OD is 100% "in the corner" of a particular child, particularly if "in our corner" is defined as "doing exactly what we want". But I also would not assume that the OD has some hidden agenda and will in no way give parents good advice or support the child in their application.

But don't the first two bolded bits constitute a "hidden agenda" of sorts? This is what people on this thread have been saying all along. Or perhaps you're arguing that it's not "hidden" in the sense that it's general knowledge they do this?

I guess I'm arguing that it's not really "hidden", in that it's pretty logical that this would happen. But also, that there's a difference between an agenda which may differ from the parents', and an agenda which is somehow secretive and inherently unfair, or that is favoring other children over yours.

But isn't this "secretive" and "hidden" in the sense that a school is never going to tell a family, "we're not pushing your kid very hard at the meetings with school X"? Nor will they tell the family, "the reason we're not pushing is DH is a PITA." Bear in mind, the school has probably already told the family something like, "we don't think your kid is a good fit for school X," but if the family insists on applying anyway, then it's up to the school to promote the kid, or not. The thing is, logic does tell you this will happen, but you never know whether it's happening to your kid, which is OP's problem.

I'm not going to take on the "unfair" thing because I don't know how I feel about it. I don't have a view on whether it's "unfair" for a school to promote a pleasant family that donates a lot over a PITA family that doesn't donate, for example.

I think there are a few people on here arguing with the person who is calling everybody else paranoid, FWIW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ODs are trying to balance a number of variables: having most families happy with their next school, having the secondary schools happy with the primary school, and finding a good fit between each student and their secondary school. If too many parents leave feeling that the OD didn't help them (or actually hurt them), that is bad. If too many secondary schools end up dissatisfied with the kids who come from a given primary school, or thinking that the OD is not helpful to them in finding kids who will be successful, that is bad. If too many kids end up at schools which are poor fits, that is bad.

So I would never assume that an OD is 100% "in the corner" of a particular child, particularly if "in our corner" is defined as "doing exactly what we want". But I also would not assume that the OD has some hidden agenda and will in no way give parents good advice or support the child in their application.

... there's a difference between an agenda which may differ from the parents', and an agenda which is somehow secretive and inherently unfair, or that is favoring other children over yours.

I agree wholeheartedly with these two comments. I especially agree with the last point about how "differing agendas" doesn't mean unfair or favoring other children over yours. It's precisely the attitude of "someone's getting more favorable treatment than I am!" that I find objectionable in many of the extreme claims from page 1 of this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ODs are trying to balance a number of variables: having most families happy with their next school, having the secondary schools happy with the primary school, and finding a good fit between each student and their secondary school. If too many parents leave feeling that the OD didn't help them (or actually hurt them), that is bad. If too many secondary schools end up dissatisfied with the kids who come from a given primary school, or thinking that the OD is not helpful to them in finding kids who will be successful, that is bad. If too many kids end up at schools which are poor fits, that is bad.

But isn't this "secretive" and "hidden" in the sense that a school is never going to tell a family, "we're not pushing your kid very hard at the meetings with school X"? Nor will they tell the family, "the reason we're not pushing is DH is a PITA." Bear in mind, the school has probably already told the family something like, "we don't think your kid is a good fit for school X," but if the family insists on applying anyway, then it's up to the school to promote the kid, or not. The thing is, logic does tell you this will happen, but you never know whether it's happening to your kid, which is OP's problem.

I see these two descriptions as very different. The first PP is acknowledging that ODs have other agendas besides just doing exactly what each parent requests. And most of those other agendas are pretty reasonable and understandable. The second PP is positing that all other agendas must include a zero-sum game of promoting one child over another, and that there are ugly motives for choosing which child gets promoted.

FWIW, I think the first PP's description is much more accurate in most cases. I'm sure that somewhere out there there have been ODs who operated more on the ugly model the second PP describes, but I'd bet they're few and far between. But ultimately, all anyone here has is pure speculation about how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

... there's a difference between an agenda which may differ from the parents', and an agenda which is somehow secretive and inherently unfair, or that is favoring other children over yours.

I agree wholeheartedly with these two comments. I especially agree with the last point about how "differing agendas" doesn't mean unfair or favoring other children over yours. It's precisely the attitude of "someone's getting more favorable treatment than I am!" that I find objectionable in many of the extreme claims from page 1 of this thread.

I think "differing agendas" could actually mean "unfair," although I'm still thinking this over. Think about the examples earlier in the thread from somebody (not me) about the 4 corporate lawyers' daughters who have similar GPAs and sports. The school will promote 1 or 2 of these girls, and they will probably select which to promote based on the parents' expected contribution to the next school.

Is this fair, or not, if the girls themselves are identical? Maybe it is fair, if the ability to volunteer/donate/not be PITA is an attribute that the family as a whole brings to the next school. But then again, the ability to donate/volunteer is often linked to income and having a SAHM. Also, from the point of view of these identical girls, it's not fair.

(And please point us to where somebody posted, "somebody's getting more favorable treatment than I am!" This sort of distortion isn't helpful to the discussion.)