SSFS Will Stay Open

[Anonymous]

We are not returning but I think SSFS will get to 275.

[Anonymous]

I’m not part of SSFS but 275 is not a bad number. I know it’s a big drop from 500+ but it’s still bigger than several of the smaller/medium size schools in the area.

[Anonymous]

A school already set up to operate at a small size is not the same thing as taking a 700 student school and running it with a third of its size.

The extra buildings, staff, amenities like the cafeteria - all would need to run on donations since the income will not cover any of it.

Also a 275 school does not need 135 staff members. What are you proposing happens to the extra? They get paid to stay without students to teach? A already smaller sized school would have a smaller staff.

I don’t see how you compare the two situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A school already set up to operate at a small size is not the same thing as taking a 700 student school and running it with a third of its size.

The extra buildings, staff, amenities like the cafeteria - all would need to run on donations since the income will not cover any of it.

Also a 275 school does not need 135 staff members. What are you proposing happens to the extra? They get paid to stay without students to teach? A already smaller sized school would have a smaller staff.

I don’t see how you compare the two situations.

+1. A school of 275 spread across K-12, that used to have over 500-700 is trending in the wrong direction. Very very badly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A school already set up to operate at a small size is not the same thing as taking a 700 student school and running it with a third of its size.

The extra buildings, staff, amenities like the cafeteria - all would need to run on donations since the income will not cover any of it.

Also a 275 school does not need 135 staff members. What are you proposing happens to the extra? They get paid to stay without students to teach? A already smaller sized school would have a smaller staff.

I don’t see how you compare the two situations.

+1. A school of 275 spread across K-12, that used to have over 500-700 is trending in the wrong direction. Very very badly.

OR, it's no longer trending in the wrong direction. It hit it's low with the announced closure and lower enrollment, the community and alumni have rallied and found donors. The leaders are set to change. And now from this point forward it will begin to trend in the right direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A school already set up to operate at a small size is not the same thing as taking a 700 student school and running it with a third of its size.

The extra buildings, staff, amenities like the cafeteria - all would need to run on donations since the income will not cover any of it.

Also a 275 school does not need 135 staff members. What are you proposing happens to the extra? They get paid to stay without students to teach? A already smaller sized school would have a smaller staff.

I don’t see how you compare the two situations.

+1. A school of 275 spread across K-12, that used to have over 500-700 is trending in the wrong direction. Very very badly.

OR, it's no longer trending in the wrong direction. It hit it's low with the announced closure and lower enrollment, the community and alumni have rallied and found donors. The leaders are set to change. And now from this point forward it will begin to trend in the right direction.

I wish you all the best of luck and success. I love the optimism. But it’s a tough moment and one has to acknowledge that. I can’t help but wonder what the interim head of school has been doing and what their role was during the events of last number of weeks. And I hope your new head is fantastic. Because this is a huge job, saving this school. Everybody keeps talking about the board of trustees, but your head of school is supposed to be your CEO that knows more about school governance and the business of running a school than anyone else at the table.
As I said, I’m pulling for you guys.

[Anonymous]

This could be an opportunity for some kids that didn’t get in anywhere last admission cycle. There is no shortage of them. They can head up to SSFS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A school already set up to operate at a small size is not the same thing as taking a 700 student school and running it with a third of its size.

The extra buildings, staff, amenities like the cafeteria - all would need to run on donations since the income will not cover any of it.

Also a 275 school does not need 135 staff members. What are you proposing happens to the extra? They get paid to stay without students to teach? A already smaller sized school would have a smaller staff.

I don’t see how you compare the two situations.

+1. A school of 275 spread across K-12, that used to have over 500-700 is trending in the wrong direction. Very very badly.

OR, it's no longer trending in the wrong direction. It hit it's low with the announced closure and lower enrollment, the community and alumni have rallied and found donors. The leaders are set to change. And now from this point forward it will begin to trend in the right direction.

I wish you all the best of luck and success. I love the optimism. But it’s a tough moment and one has to acknowledge that. I can’t help but wonder what the interim head of school has been doing and what their role was during the events of last number of weeks. And I hope your new head is fantastic. Because this is a huge job, saving this school. Everybody keeps talking about the board of trustees, but your head of school is supposed to be your CEO that knows more about school governance and the business of running a school than anyone else at the table.
As I said, I’m pulling for you guys.

Ugh. More man-splaining. Yeah we know what needs to be acknowledged. We know what the role of the HOS is and the role of the BOT. We understand our own school and what needs fixing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A school already set up to operate at a small size is not the same thing as taking a 700 student school and running it with a third of its size.

The extra buildings, staff, amenities like the cafeteria - all would need to run on donations since the income will not cover any of it.

Also a 275 school does not need 135 staff members. What are you proposing happens to the extra? They get paid to stay without students to teach? A already smaller sized school would have a smaller staff.

I don’t see how you compare the two situations.

+1. A school of 275 spread across K-12, that used to have over 500-700 is trending in the wrong direction. Very very badly.

OR, it's no longer trending in the wrong direction. It hit it's low with the announced closure and lower enrollment, the community and alumni have rallied and found donors. The leaders are set to change. And now from this point forward it will begin to trend in the right direction.

I wish you all the best of luck and success. I love the optimism. But it’s a tough moment and one has to acknowledge that. I can’t help but wonder what the interim head of school has been doing and what their role was during the events of last number of weeks. And I hope your new head is fantastic. Because this is a huge job, saving this school. Everybody keeps talking about the board of trustees, but your head of school is supposed to be your CEO that knows more about school governance and the business of running a school than anyone else at the table.
As I said, I’m pulling for you guys.

Ugh. More man-splaining. Yeah we know what needs to be acknowledged. We know what the role of the HOS is and the role of the BOT. We understand our own school and what needs fixing.

I’m not the OP but I don’t understand why you’re snapping at the person. I didn’t see that they said anything that terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ugh. More man-splaining. Yeah we know what needs to be acknowledged. We know what the role of the HOS is and the role of the BOT. We understand our own school and what needs fixing.

I’m not the OP but I don’t understand why you’re snapping at the person. I didn’t see that they said anything that terrible.

This keeps happening, and it’s a shame.

I understand that people have been on a roller coaster since the email went out. Emotions are running high. But the denial of the reality of the situation is dangerous.

It should not be written off as man-splaining or being condescending to express concerns or acknowledge that the situation does not look good.

[Anonymous]

Reality is not mansplaining. Some of you are absolutely refusing to face reality. It’s really sad. I get the need to try and stay positive, but to live in a world steeped in delusion is dangerous. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

I’m so upset at the reality that even 275 is a faculty and staff of 50-60. There were over 140 of the most gifted and dedicated teachers you would ever want to meet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ugh. More man-splaining. Yeah we know what needs to be acknowledged. We know what the role of the HOS is and the role of the BOT. We understand our own school and what needs fixing.

I’m not the OP but I don’t understand why you’re snapping at the person. I didn’t see that they said anything that terrible.

This keeps happening, and it’s a shame.

I understand that people have been on a roller coaster since the email went out. Emotions are running high. But the denial of the reality of the situation is dangerous.

It should not be written off as man-splaining or being condescending to express concerns or acknowledge that the situation does not look good.

And *this* keeps happening. Posters like you keep assuming that anyone who is positive or hopeful is in denial and that is a shame.

[Anonymous]

I wish the school luck, but reenrolling at this point seems like a sunken cost fallacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reality is not mansplaining. Some of you are absolutely refusing to face reality. It’s really sad. I get the need to try and stay positive, but to live in a world steeped in delusion is dangerous. Good luck with that.

More assumptions. At this point it's just become laughable how convinced some of you are that anonymous posters are living "in a world steeped in delusion".