Norwood: What do you love? Not Love?

[Anonymous]

It is probably the best school in Mont Co.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did the board vote in April and just announce now? The process could have been more transparent for such a small school that prides itself on character development.

The strategic plan that initiated the review was adopted in April. The changes were approved recently.

Your answer does not address lack of transparency.

All parents were invited to discuss the draft strategic plan with Dick Ewing prior to its adoption. Following its adoption, the strategic plan was emailed to all parents. The plan included the recommendation that the board "review the role of religion and spirituality consistent with the 2006 Board resolutions." The school administration tries hard to share information with the school community. I suspect not that many within the community pay attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a interesting thread on bullying started by a GDS parent here: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/126948.page

Quoting from the OP there, "the school is responsive to bullying but it relies on the responsiveness of the bully's parents. Also, that the teachers and administration need to be alerted to it rather than proactively catch it particularly on the playground."

I think that unfortunately this is true at many private schools (as opposed to MCPS, which I understand has a zero-tolerance policy).

I agree. The public schools have been sued...so they act. I am not sure that private schools have had many suits. Every time you read about some kid who commits suicide who was a victim of relentless bullying, you can bet that there is a law suit coming to that school system. Any contact in MCPS is taken very seriously, and verbal abuse is treated similarly.

I once overheard an assistant principal disciplining a child in public school for teasing a younger child on the bus. The younger child apparently told her mother that she did not want to ride the bus anymore b/c of some older kids' behaviour. The call came from the mother to the school at 9:00 am, and by 9:30, the older child was in the office hearing it. Then immediately, the parent of the older child was notified.

No different from the GDS scenario. You've given an MCPS example in which school responds to parent report of bullying. School didn't catch it themselves. And parents of kid doing the bullying were notified. Question becomes whether kid cleans up his/her act and, if not, whether that's because parents didn't back the school up on the issue.

[Anonymous]

It is somewhat different b/c MCPS is not relying solely on the parents' responsiveness. They impose immediate consequences, which all parents may not do.

[Anonymous]

So does GDS. The question then becomes whether the school-imposed consequences end the bullying. From what I've seen, when the parents back up the school, they do. But in cases where kids are repeat offenders, the parents tend to be people who aren't taking the issue seriously or holding their kid responsible for the dynamic.

[Anonymous]

Anybody attended the session this morning with Ms. Nichols? Very much wanted to but couldn't because of other commitments.

I think it is great that she is making herself readily available to the parent community. There is also a session on bullying tomorrow morning (with the Parent Association).

[Anonymous]

The bullying problem at Norwood has been around for so long, I just don't think it is easily handled. I believe it has to do (in part) with lack of a zero-tolerance policy, handling issues on a case-by-case basis, and administration not standing up to parents of bullies, who (in my direct knowledge of three cases) roared into the principal's office demanding that little Suzie/Jonny couldn't have done it, the victim must have brought it on, etc. (In one case the bully stayed out of school - "sick" - until things had calmed down.) Attention can easily be turned to the "what is wrong with the so-called victim; what did he or she do to bring on the bullying - let's ' fix' the bullied child." No joke. The dynamics are subtle, but this is the upshot. As many have said, though, each class is different, and sometimes the bullying is among the boys, sometimes among the girls, sometimes cross-geneder.

[Anonymous]

WRT bullying, as previously mentioned, one huge lawsuit at any of these schools will get the insurance companies to force the hands of the schools to change the way they do business.

The very big family donors at Norwood seem to have normal kids.

I am amazed that the parents don't listen when they are told that their kids are acting up. No one wants the Huguely kind of outcome. It is best to nip the violence in the bud.

[Anonymous]

After all the comments regarding the way the school handles bullying, it's strange that no one has commented all day today, after the school's new Lower School head held an open forum discussion on the issue this morning.

As a new parent, I don't know what problems there may or may not have been in the past. But in any case, it is meaningful--and an extremely positive sign--that Ms. Nichols held a discussion on the topic so quickly. She did a great job and inspired a lot of confidence that any bullying will be dealt with well and appropriately.

For those who have been complaining, I hope you were there and will follow her lead and engage the school on the topic, and not just complain on an Internet message board.

[Anonymous]

21:37 You appear to be the only one "complaining" about parents whose experience you admittedly know nothing about. You come online to scold people for coming online. Are you just a troublemaker?

Troll.

[Anonymous]

I cannot imagine that some of the parents who I know send their kids to norwood would tolerate bullying for minutes, let alone years. I am not saying that people are lying in posts but the issue doesn't ring true.

[Anonymous]

I'm afraid this type of testimony is completely meaningless.

[Anonymous]

And why is your testimony--cloaked in anonymity--more meaningful? I have to agree with 21:37 and 23:41. If you have a legitimate complaint about bullying that apparently has "lasted for years", then you should be bringing this up to the school and not complain about it on an anonymous public forum.

I seriously doubt the legitimacy of your claim. What kind of parent would subject their child to years of bullying?

[Anonymous]

I don't know what "claim" you are talking about. I find this type of testimony meaningless because the fact that some parents are nice or would not tolerate bullying (presumably in their own children) says nothing about whether or not bullying exists at a school. If you attended yesterday's meeting, you would know that bullying is a very real issue that concerns many Norwood parents and that has not always been handled effectively in the past. I think Annie Nichols has made it clear that she takes bullying and other forms of unwelcome behavior very seriously, and I am hoping things will improve with the change of administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did the board vote in April and just announce now? The process could have been more transparent for such a small school that prides itself on character development.

The strategic plan that initiated the review was adopted in April. The changes were approved recently.

Your answer does not address lack of transparency.

All parents were invited to discuss the draft strategic plan with Dick Ewing prior to its adoption. Following its adoption, the strategic plan was emailed to all parents. The plan included the recommendation that the board "review the role of religion and spirituality consistent with the 2006 Board resolutions." The school administration tries hard to share information with the school community. I suspect not that many within the community pay attention.

We did not see the e-mail because we were not paying attention. Guilty as insinuated. In the past, other things deemed critical to the school (Annual Fund and Auction) have been brought to our attention when we had not responded after the first e-mail.