Field vs SSFS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SSFS is somewhat more diverse and more traditional (i.e. they have AP classes while Field does not). I don't think Field's academics are any stronger.

I could have written this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trying to decide btwn Field and SSFS for a middle schooler. Both schools seem warm and accepting, but are the academics that much strong at Field to warrant the price difference? Our main concern is the small grade size.

What is the price difference?

[Anonymous]

Too late for this poster I'm sure but I really would not rely on DCUM to make this decision for you. My kids have attended three privates in total and our experiences have always been really different from what the convenional wisdom is on this board. People posting may be working off of limited knowledge from years ago or just be trolling, you never know. Talking to parents at the schools and your gut feeling from your own interactions and research is going to take you so much further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too late for this poster I'm sure but I really would not rely on DCUM to make this decision for you. My kids have attended three privates in total and our experiences have always been really different from what the convenional wisdom is on this board. People posting may be working off of limited knowledge from years ago or just be trolling, you never know. Talking to parents at the schools and your gut feeling from your own interactions and research is going to take you so much further.

Same with us: our experiences for our kids (at least one kid) were very different than what we saw on this board. In hindsight, we were trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. It wasn't the school; it wasn't our kid; our kid and the school just were not a match. Here, sounds like you have two good options if your kid likes both!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trying to decide btwn Field and SSFS for a middle schooler. Both schools seem warm and accepting, but are the academics that much strong at Field to warrant the price difference? Our main concern is the small grade size.

What is the price difference?

$54k Field vs. $43k day program at SSFS (not as much difference as I was expecting but was curious based on the comments)

https://www.fieldschool.org/admission/tuition-financial-aid

https://www.ssfs.org/admission/tuition-value

[Anonymous]

My child is a senior at SSFS and I would not recommend this school at all.

First, the administration doesn't care about the concerns of students or parents. Administrators will nod sympathetically as you speak, tell you they will get back to you, then send an email essentially closing the door in your face. No discussion, no explanation. Everything from bullying to misappropriation of funds gets whitewashed.

Second, the school lacks academic rigor. This may be acceptable for students who struggle academically, but high achievers will not get any support at SSFS. As long as students meet the very low academic standards set by teachers, very few provide any individuation for high achievers. When students matriculate, they are given a basic math test to determine what math class to enroll in. But all the other classes are standard for everyone and regardless of how advanced a student is, they will need to dumb down to the school's low standards. And there are very few classes to choose from compared to most private schools.

Third, the school gives lip service to its Quaker identity but does not embody Quaker values. While the school promotes the Quaker slogan of "Let your lives speak," they will not support students who actually do let their lives speak. For example, my student and his history teacher were interested in starting an academic journal that would be run through the history department. Student did extensive research and wrote a detailed proposal explaining the purpose, function, and goals of the journal and that he would be volunteering his time to run the journal at absolutely no cost to the school. While it would benefit the school to have an academic journal associated with it, student was told he could not attempt to create this journal because while he was competent enough to make the journal successful, once he graduated they thought it would fail. Rather than promote this opportunity as a positive way to encourage other students to "let their lives speak," the message they gave to student (and anyone who would follow) was don't attempt anything because even though you might be successful, others might fail, so don't even try. Additionally, student joined the debate team and became the captain, but there was no coach. He and his debate partner excelled despite not having a coach. The partner's father gave the school $10,000 for the purpose of hiring a coach. It is now a year later, and the school has still not hired a debate coach, nor does it intend to. This student graduated, never getting the coach his family paid for. Moreover, these kids had traveled on their own to debate at Harvard's National tournament and the school even refused to use a small portion of that money to cover the registration fee, let alone all the other costs associated with attending the tournament. And they traveled alone because, of course, they had no coach. As with the academic journal, the school knows that once the high achieving students are gone, there will be no pressure for the school to support students in "letting their lives speak." The school is happy to take money from families, but not fulfill its promises.

Fourth, while the school describes its disciplinary system as based on Quaker values, it is characterized by favoritism, inconsistency, and ineffectiveness. The school ignores bullying when the student perpetrators are favored by the Deans - thus enabling bullying on campus. When the disciplinary system does act, it is ineffective. While the school pretends to promote the Quaker value of reflection, instead, it removes the student from a full day of classes to sit and watch a 10 minute speech by Steve Jobs and answer comprehension questions.

Fifth, the school has had a practice of hiring staff that have clearly engaged in illicit behavior.

Sixth, some teachers think it is okay to spread rumors about students - even rumors that are entirely untrue.

Seventh, teachers (like parents) are alienated by administrative policies. Last year, student was the Torch (student government) representative to the faculty. From his position, he came to realize how disenfranchised and marginalized the teachers are from school policy. He also realized how ineffective and unproductive Torch is as a student government. This is why he turned down the opportunity to continue with Torch.The disenfranchisement of students and faculty leads me to my next point.

There is an extremely high attrition rate among students and faculty alike.

Moreover, in four years, there have been four different Heads of Upper School. These heads are leaving because they obviously know something that the administration is not disclosing to its families. And last July the Head of School was abruptly fired. Although no explanation was given, rumors of illicit behavior spread. The school has serious problems and there is no indication it is improving.

[Anonymous]

We looked at both and spoke to lots of parents and visited - our takeaway: SSFS is great for quirkier kids, for kids who aren’t fixated on academics and for kids who just want to be whomever they are. Very nice socially and supportive, beautiful campus.
Field — prep school focused on academics that is great for kids who need a little extra support or less pressure. Nice school, well thought out classes. Small. The price difference however is huge once you get to HS….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child is a senior at SSFS and I would not recommend this school at all.

First, the administration doesn't care about the concerns of students or parents. Administrators will nod sympathetically as you speak, tell you they will get back to you, then send an email essentially closing the door in your face. No discussion, no explanation. Everything from bullying to misappropriation of funds gets whitewashed.

Second, the school lacks academic rigor. This may be acceptable for students who struggle academically, but high achievers will not get any support at SSFS. As long as students meet the very low academic standards set by teachers, very few provide any individuation for high achievers. When students matriculate, they are given a basic math test to determine what math class to enroll in. But all the other classes are standard for everyone and regardless of how advanced a student is, they will need to dumb down to the school's low standards. And there are very few classes to choose from compared to most private schools.

Third, the school gives lip service to its Quaker identity but does not embody Quaker values. While the school promotes the Quaker slogan of "Let your lives speak," they will not support students who actually do let their lives speak. For example, my student and his history teacher were interested in starting an academic journal that would be run through the history department. Student did extensive research and wrote a detailed proposal explaining the purpose, function, and goals of the journal and that he would be volunteering his time to run the journal at absolutely no cost to the school. While it would benefit the school to have an academic journal associated with it, student was told he could not attempt to create this journal because while he was competent enough to make the journal successful, once he graduated they thought it would fail. Rather than promote this opportunity as a positive way to encourage other students to "let their lives speak," the message they gave to student (and anyone who would follow) was don't attempt anything because even though you might be successful, others might fail, so don't even try. Additionally, student joined the debate team and became the captain, but there was no coach. He and his debate partner excelled despite not having a coach. The partner's father gave the school $10,000 for the purpose of hiring a coach. It is now a year later, and the school has still not hired a debate coach, nor does it intend to. This student graduated, never getting the coach his family paid for. Moreover, these kids had traveled on their own to debate at Harvard's National tournament and the school even refused to use a small portion of that money to cover the registration fee, let alone all the other costs associated with attending the tournament. And they traveled alone because, of course, they had no coach. As with the academic journal, the school knows that once the high achieving students are gone, there will be no pressure for the school to support students in "letting their lives speak." The school is happy to take money from families, but not fulfill its promises.

Fourth, while the school describes its disciplinary system as based on Quaker values, it is characterized by favoritism, inconsistency, and ineffectiveness. The school ignores bullying when the student perpetrators are favored by the Deans - thus enabling bullying on campus. When the disciplinary system does act, it is ineffective. While the school pretends to promote the Quaker value of reflection, instead, it removes the student from a full day of classes to sit and watch a 10 minute speech by Steve Jobs and answer comprehension questions.

Fifth, the school has had a practice of hiring staff that have clearly engaged in illicit behavior.

Sixth, some teachers think it is okay to spread rumors about students - even rumors that are entirely untrue.

Seventh, teachers (like parents) are alienated by administrative policies. Last year, student was the Torch (student government) representative to the faculty. From his position, he came to realize how disenfranchised and marginalized the teachers are from school policy. He also realized how ineffective and unproductive Torch is as a student government. This is why he turned down the opportunity to continue with Torch.The disenfranchisement of students and faculty leads me to my next point.

There is an extremely high attrition rate among students and faculty alike.

Moreover, in four years, there have been four different Heads of Upper School. These heads are leaving because they obviously know something that the administration is not disclosing to its families. And last July the Head of School was abruptly fired. Although no explanation was given, rumors of illicit behavior spread. The school has serious problems and there is no indication it is improving.

Wow

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child is a senior at SSFS and I would not recommend this school at all.

First, the administration doesn't care about the concerns of students or parents. Administrators will nod sympathetically as you speak, tell you they will get back to you, then send an email essentially closing the door in your face. No discussion, no explanation. Everything from bullying to misappropriation of funds gets whitewashed.

Second, the school lacks academic rigor. This may be acceptable for students who struggle academically, but high achievers will not get any support at SSFS. As long as students meet the very low academic standards set by teachers, very few provide any individuation for high achievers. When students matriculate, they are given a basic math test to determine what math class to enroll in. But all the other classes are standard for everyone and regardless of how advanced a student is, they will need to dumb down to the school's low standards. And there are very few classes to choose from compared to most private schools.

Third, the school gives lip service to its Quaker identity but does not embody Quaker values. While the school promotes the Quaker slogan of "Let your lives speak," they will not support students who actually do let their lives speak. For example, my student and his history teacher were interested in starting an academic journal that would be run through the history department. Student did extensive research and wrote a detailed proposal explaining the purpose, function, and goals of the journal and that he would be volunteering his time to run the journal at absolutely no cost to the school. While it would benefit the school to have an academic journal associated with it, student was told he could not attempt to create this journal because while he was competent enough to make the journal successful, once he graduated they thought it would fail. Rather than promote this opportunity as a positive way to encourage other students to "let their lives speak," the message they gave to student (and anyone who would follow) was don't attempt anything because even though you might be successful, others might fail, so don't even try. Additionally, student joined the debate team and became the captain, but there was no coach. He and his debate partner excelled despite not having a coach. The partner's father gave the school $10,000 for the purpose of hiring a coach. It is now a year later, and the school has still not hired a debate coach, nor does it intend to. This student graduated, never getting the coach his family paid for. Moreover, these kids had traveled on their own to debate at Harvard's National tournament and the school even refused to use a small portion of that money to cover the registration fee, let alone all the other costs associated with attending the tournament. And they traveled alone because, of course, they had no coach. As with the academic journal, the school knows that once the high achieving students are gone, there will be no pressure for the school to support students in "letting their lives speak." The school is happy to take money from families, but not fulfill its promises.

Fourth, while the school describes its disciplinary system as based on Quaker values, it is characterized by favoritism, inconsistency, and ineffectiveness. The school ignores bullying when the student perpetrators are favored by the Deans - thus enabling bullying on campus. When the disciplinary system does act, it is ineffective. While the school pretends to promote the Quaker value of reflection, instead, it removes the student from a full day of classes to sit and watch a 10 minute speech by Steve Jobs and answer comprehension questions.

Fifth, the school has had a practice of hiring staff that have clearly engaged in illicit behavior.

Sixth, some teachers think it is okay to spread rumors about students - even rumors that are entirely untrue.

Seventh, teachers (like parents) are alienated by administrative policies. Last year, student was the Torch (student government) representative to the faculty. From his position, he came to realize how disenfranchised and marginalized the teachers are from school policy. He also realized how ineffective and unproductive Torch is as a student government. This is why he turned down the opportunity to continue with Torch.The disenfranchisement of students and faculty leads me to my next point.

There is an extremely high attrition rate among students and faculty alike.

Moreover, in four years, there have been four different Heads of Upper School. These heads are leaving because they obviously know something that the administration is not disclosing to its families. And last July the Head of School was abruptly fired. Although no explanation was given, rumors of illicit behavior spread. The school has serious problems and there is no indication it is improving.

I say this w kindness, pp-do your child a favor and ask that this be removed. I’m another upper school parent and while I don’t know who your child is based on this I’m sure any teacher ( or kid) reading this would. It’s really a disservice to your child to post your/their personal gripes about the school in such an identifiable way.

[Anonymous]

Pp why would you out your child like this?

[Anonymous]

Doesnt SSFS have a larger and nicer campus?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child is a senior at SSFS and I would not recommend this school at all.

First, the administration doesn't care about the concerns of students or parents. Administrators will nod sympathetically as you speak, tell you they will get back to you, then send an email essentially closing the door in your face. No discussion, no explanation. Everything from bullying to misappropriation of funds gets whitewashed.

Second, the school lacks academic rigor. This may be acceptable for students who struggle academically, but high achievers will not get any support at SSFS. As long as students meet the very low academic standards set by teachers, very few provide any individuation for high achievers. When students matriculate, they are given a basic math test to determine what math class to enroll in. But all the other classes are standard for everyone and regardless of how advanced a student is, they will need to dumb down to the school's low standards. And there are very few classes to choose from compared to most private schools.

Third, the school gives lip service to its Quaker identity but does not embody Quaker values. While the school promotes the Quaker slogan of "Let your lives speak," they will not support students who actually do let their lives speak. For example, my student and his history teacher were interested in starting an academic journal that would be run through the history department. Student did extensive research and wrote a detailed proposal explaining the purpose, function, and goals of the journal and that he would be volunteering his time to run the journal at absolutely no cost to the school. While it would benefit the school to have an academic journal associated with it, student was told he could not attempt to create this journal because while he was competent enough to make the journal successful, once he graduated they thought it would fail. Rather than promote this opportunity as a positive way to encourage other students to "let their lives speak," the message they gave to student (and anyone who would follow) was don't attempt anything because even though you might be successful, others might fail, so don't even try. Additionally, student joined the debate team and became the captain, but there was no coach. He and his debate partner excelled despite not having a coach. The partner's father gave the school $10,000 for the purpose of hiring a coach. It is now a year later, and the school has still not hired a debate coach, nor does it intend to. This student graduated, never getting the coach his family paid for. Moreover, these kids had traveled on their own to debate at Harvard's National tournament and the school even refused to use a small portion of that money to cover the registration fee, let alone all the other costs associated with attending the tournament. And they traveled alone because, of course, they had no coach. As with the academic journal, the school knows that once the high achieving students are gone, there will be no pressure for the school to support students in "letting their lives speak." The school is happy to take money from families, but not fulfill its promises.

Fourth, while the school describes its disciplinary system as based on Quaker values, it is characterized by favoritism, inconsistency, and ineffectiveness. The school ignores bullying when the student perpetrators are favored by the Deans - thus enabling bullying on campus. When the disciplinary system does act, it is ineffective. While the school pretends to promote the Quaker value of reflection, instead, it removes the student from a full day of classes to sit and watch a 10 minute speech by Steve Jobs and answer comprehension questions.

Fifth, the school has had a practice of hiring staff that have clearly engaged in illicit behavior.

Sixth, some teachers think it is okay to spread rumors about students - even rumors that are entirely untrue.

Seventh, teachers (like parents) are alienated by administrative policies. Last year, student was the Torch (student government) representative to the faculty. From his position, he came to realize how disenfranchised and marginalized the teachers are from school policy. He also realized how ineffective and unproductive Torch is as a student government. This is why he turned down the opportunity to continue with Torch.The disenfranchisement of students and faculty leads me to my next point.

There is an extremely high attrition rate among students and faculty alike.

Moreover, in four years, there have been four different Heads of Upper School. These heads are leaving because they obviously know something that the administration is not disclosing to its families. And last July the Head of School was abruptly fired. Although no explanation was given, rumors of illicit behavior spread. The school has serious problems and there is no indication it is improving.

I say this w kindness, pp-do your child a favor and ask that this be removed. I’m another upper school parent and while I don’t know who your child is based on this I’m sure any teacher ( or kid) reading this would. It’s really a disservice to your child to post your/their personal gripes about the school in such an identifiable way.

I would suggest she edit out the Torch part but the other comments are really very general. Thank you for posting both PPs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child is a senior at SSFS and I would not recommend this school at all.

First, the administration doesn't care about the concerns of students or parents. Administrators will nod sympathetically as you speak, tell you they will get back to you, then send an email essentially closing the door in your face. No discussion, no explanation. Everything from bullying to misappropriation of funds gets whitewashed.

Second, the school lacks academic rigor. This may be acceptable for students who struggle academically, but high achievers will not get any support at SSFS. As long as students meet the very low academic standards set by teachers, very few provide any individuation for high achievers. When students matriculate, they are given a basic math test to determine what math class to enroll in. But all the other classes are standard for everyone and regardless of how advanced a student is, they will need to dumb down to the school's low standards. And there are very few classes to choose from compared to most private schools.

Third, the school gives lip service to its Quaker identity but does not embody Quaker values. While the school promotes the Quaker slogan of "Let your lives speak," they will not support students who actually do let their lives speak. For example, my student and his history teacher were interested in starting an academic journal that would be run through the history department. Student did extensive research and wrote a detailed proposal explaining the purpose, function, and goals of the journal and that he would be volunteering his time to run the journal at absolutely no cost to the school. While it would benefit the school to have an academic journal associated with it, student was told he could not attempt to create this journal because while he was competent enough to make the journal successful, once he graduated they thought it would fail. Rather than promote this opportunity as a positive way to encourage other students to "let their lives speak," the message they gave to student (and anyone who would follow) was don't attempt anything because even though you might be successful, others might fail, so don't even try. Additionally, student joined the debate team and became the captain, but there was no coach. He and his debate partner excelled despite not having a coach. The partner's father gave the school $10,000 for the purpose of hiring a coach. It is now a year later, and the school has still not hired a debate coach, nor does it intend to. This student graduated, never getting the coach his family paid for. Moreover, these kids had traveled on their own to debate at Harvard's National tournament and the school even refused to use a small portion of that money to cover the registration fee, let alone all the other costs associated with attending the tournament. And they traveled alone because, of course, they had no coach. As with the academic journal, the school knows that once the high achieving students are gone, there will be no pressure for the school to support students in "letting their lives speak." The school is happy to take money from families, but not fulfill its promises.

Fourth, while the school describes its disciplinary system as based on Quaker values, it is characterized by favoritism, inconsistency, and ineffectiveness. The school ignores bullying when the student perpetrators are favored by the Deans - thus enabling bullying on campus. When the disciplinary system does act, it is ineffective. While the school pretends to promote the Quaker value of reflection, instead, it removes the student from a full day of classes to sit and watch a 10 minute speech by Steve Jobs and answer comprehension questions.

Fifth, the school has had a practice of hiring staff that have clearly engaged in illicit behavior.

Sixth, some teachers think it is okay to spread rumors about students - even rumors that are entirely untrue.

Seventh, teachers (like parents) are alienated by administrative policies. Last year, student was the Torch (student government) representative to the faculty. From his position, he came to realize how disenfranchised and marginalized the teachers are from school policy. He also realized how ineffective and unproductive Torch is as a student government. This is why he turned down the opportunity to continue with Torch.The disenfranchisement of students and faculty leads me to my next point.

There is an extremely high attrition rate among students and faculty alike.

Moreover, in four years, there have been four different Heads of Upper School. These heads are leaving because they obviously know something that the administration is not disclosing to its families. And last July the Head of School was abruptly fired. Although no explanation was given, rumors of illicit behavior spread. The school has serious problems and there is no indication it is improving.

Dear disgruntled parent.

You are a doozy with way too much time on your hands.

Did you ever think about modeling for your DC that sometimes things aren’t as expected and you have to roll with it. Rolling with it does not include btw posting 7 point rants anonymously -

The horrors of a standard math test to assess placement ? Really ? Every school does this.

The promise individualized learning that didn’t pan out ? That’s every school here except Fusion.

Your precious kid wants to start what is basically a hard-to-vet-and-verify science journal written by …teens…. and you are incensed that you got a perfectly rational response? Pretty tone deaf or just plain ignorant if you ask me.

You object to rumors being spread ( valid !) yet you mention several times there is illicit behavior on part of teachers and a school leader without any substantial back up info.

You are participating in the very behavior you abhor.

Management issues, squandering 10k and not walking the talk in terms of values sound like reasonable gripes. The rest sounds like you are basically a nightmare with no sense of boundaries that they will be glad to be done with.

[Anonymous]

I agree that the identifiable information will not be good for the poster’s child however, all the general points unfortunately I would have to agree with having experienced similar egregious behavior from students and admin.

I however took the step of taking my kid out. Didn’t matter that it was in the middle of the program. This was not a learning environment for my kid.

[Anonymous]

We are in our second year at SSFS, having picked it over Field. I liked Field a lot but we have been very happy with the SSFS experience. Great teachers by and large, folks who really care about kids, and a very nice and down-to-earth parent community. I’m worried about the administrative leadership turnover too but it seems like the head was bad and there is an opportunity now to course correct. I hope it happens - we are staying for now as no bad experiences personally.