Getting the GDS mojo back

[Anonymous]

Definitely a situation where kids whose parents are lawyers will not be (successfully) subjected to the same sorts of arbitrary and harsh discipline that has been inflicted on other kids. As for the racial dimension, the perception is both that a disproportionate number of African American boys disappear from the high school and that AA children generally are less likely to have their grievances taken seriously by the school. There's a tendency to cover up or downplay racialized aggression to protect the school's image. GDS parents with kids in different schools have said publicly that some of the BS their kids have had to deal with at GDS would never be tolerated at other local privates. Discipline at GDS is highly personalized and unchecked power is left in the hands of a few individuals. The due process rights that students have in public school settings are missing and the 24/7 policies encompassing off campus conduct have created a situation in which only a few are punished for conduct that is widespread.

The problems aren't limited to discipline. There appears to be a fairly significant achievement gap, especially in math. Differentiation doesn't begin until middle school and it starts with individual teachers slipping accelerated work packets to some kids but not making them available to those who express an interest. And the Diversity Office, which was once one of GDS's greatest strengths (both internally and externally), has been really gutted. It's not the resource it once was -- for students, teachers, or parents.

Interesting. GDS has long been a leader in diversity, but I think issues with discipline especially with AA boys is a problem with a lot of privates. I'm surprised GDS is worse than say STA

[Anonymous]

GDS is also worse than Landon, I'm told (by someone with kids at both).

[Anonymous]

GDS is worse than Landon, Sidwell, NCS or STA for AA kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GDS is worse than Landon, Sidwell, NCS or STA for AA kids.

Why? What are the school's motivations or what factors contribute to it? Is class another facet to the problem or are AA kids of all classes treated poorly?

[Anonymous]

It's a private school. As long as they don't break the law, they are not required to provide "due process." Go to DCPS if you want that.

[Anonymous]

Rich AA kids are treated poorly too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rich AA kids are treated poorly too

I hope parents vote with their feet. GDS has lost its way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GDS has serious problems right now -- some structural and some related to leadership (both the top administrators and the Board). It's a school that is trading on its past rather than building on it and it risks losing its strongest African-American students (especially but not exclusively boys) if it doesn't make significant changes. It's also losing good teachers (especially younger ones) over some of these issues.

The events of this year have put the Board and the Administration on notice regarding the nature and severity of the problems. And some structures (e.g. a taskforce on discipline) have been put in place to consider reforms. Whether GDS does the soul searching and the hard work necessary to fix what's broken and to live up to its mission is really an open question at this point. The need for massive fundraising to pull off the campus consolidation project complicates the picture because it seems to be producing a kind of desperate boosterism that's at odds with a candid assessment of what's going wrong (or not working) and why.

I am curious about the bolded statement. I think a lot of private schools (and public schools as well) have an issue with unfair discipline towards AA kids especially boys. I know GDS is a popular option for AA families, but is it doing something specific towards AA kids? I can see that maybe white kids because they have more money may get away things.

To tell the truth, my impression is that private schools, if anything, tend to bend over backwards the other way. They are very careful about discipline unless the facts are 100% clear and after having given every benefit of the doubt in the past. In today's climate, schools which see themselves as progressive are very skittish about being perceived as somehow being "insensitive."

Yup!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GDS has serious problems right now -- some structural and some related to leadership (both the top administrators and the Board). It's a school that is trading on its past rather than building on it and it risks losing its strongest African-American students (especially but not exclusively boys) if it doesn't make significant changes. It's also losing good teachers (especially younger ones) over some of these issues.

The events of this year have put the Board and the Administration on notice regarding the nature and severity of the problems. And some structures (e.g. a taskforce on discipline) have been put in place to consider reforms. Whether GDS does the soul searching and the hard work necessary to fix what's broken and to live up to its mission is really an open question at this point. The need for massive fundraising to pull off the campus consolidation project complicates the picture because it seems to be producing a kind of desperate boosterism that's at odds with a candid assessment of what's going wrong (or not working) and why.

I am curious about the bolded statement. I think a lot of private schools (and public schools as well) have an issue with unfair discipline towards AA kids especially boys. I know GDS is a popular option for AA families, but is it doing something specific towards AA kids? I can see that maybe white kids because they have more money may get away things.

To tell the truth, my impression is that private schools, if anything, tend to bend over backwards the other way. They are very careful about discipline unless the facts are 100% clear and after having given every benefit of the doubt in the past. In today's climate, schools which see themselves as progressive are very skittish about being perceived as somehow being "insensitive."

Yup!!

Either the last two PPs are GDS posters -- in which case the problem runs even deeper than suggested. Or they aren't -- in which case, they have no insight into the current situation at GDS. Certainly, the "100% clear/every benefit of the doubt" characterization is grossly inaccurate in the GDS context. No clear evidence required -- just an allegation and an administrator's assumption that the accused is the kind of kid who might do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GDS is worse than Landon, Sidwell, NCS or STA for AA kids.

Why? What are the school's motivations or what factors contribute to it? Is class another facet to the problem or are AA kids of all classes treated poorly?

"Why?" is a real question -- and answering it accurately requires an honest and thorough investigation of previous incidents and cases which, frankly, seems unlikely to happen. The administration is in "move along, nothing to see here" mode, hoping that a combination of attrition and intimidation will quiet things down.

WRT discipline, the all-boy schools don't face all the same disciplinary issues that co-ed schools face (e.g. allegations of sexual misconduct/harassment/hostile environment made by female students). GDS's 24/7 policy inherently leads to selective enforcement under conditions where the school generally can't reliably determine what happened. It also means that who gets punished depends on who complains about whom and whose complaints are taken seriously. Some of it is a failure of leadership -- there's no will or process for ensuring fair and consistent administration of relatively clearly defined rules. So we get harsh and arbitrary reactions to individual kids or incidents instead. Basically, the school writes itself a blank check wrt discipline, then routinely winks and looks the other way. Except when it doesn't. Not an approach that breeds trust.

There's probably a broader cultural issue as well. How many families are still committed to GDS's original mission? Does GDS's current approach to diversity education backfire? Is the focus on oppression and identity an ineffective way to foster a culture of mutual respect? Does the curriculum on sexuality actually provide a framework for making good choices (vs. it's all good -- just remember to use a condom)?

No to mention such mundane stuff as the existence of spaces/situations where supervision is reliably lax. And big-picture questions about the school's role in helping the kids deal with stress and mental health issues.

On one level, these are problems/issues that every school has to address, so it's not particularly surprising or damning that GDS is struggling with them. The real test is in how the school deals with them -- can GDS be as candid and critical in addressing its own failures and shortcomings as it is in pointing out others'? I'm not optimistic, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

[Anonymous]

I've wondered about some of these issues for a long time. Friends with children at GDS have always suggested strongly that their kids get better treatment and more advantages because they are on the board of trustees. I was kind of disgusted by those statements, but the parents were almost proud to report that. That is definitely NOT the case at Sidwell. If you are a big donor or on the board, your kid is just as likely to get bad grades or be subject to disciplinary action as anyone else in the school. Sure, it takes guts for an administrator to call a prominent parent to report a suspension, but they aim for integrity.

[Anonymous]

I agree that GDS has lost its way. They've lost sight of core values as they've pushed for all those Harvard acceptances. The school will recover, but they need to see the problems and not sweep them under the rug. And favoritism has to end!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that GDS has lost its way. They've lost sight of core values as they've pushed for all those Harvard acceptances. The school will recover, but they need to see the problems and not sweep them under the rug. And favoritism has to end!

It will be a challenge to focus on the school educational and management issues when the school leadership and board are all fixated on the "The Art of the Deal", trying to become big time real estate developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've wondered about some of these issues for a long time. Friends with children at GDS have always suggested strongly that their kids get better treatment and more advantages because they are on the board of trustees. I was kind of disgusted by those statements, but the parents were almost proud to report that. That is definitely NOT the case at Sidwell. If you are a big donor or on the board, your kid is just as likely to get bad grades or be subject to disciplinary action as anyone else in the school. Sure, it takes guts for an administrator to call a prominent parent to report a suspension, but they aim for integrity.

Interesting that Board Members claim this. Hard to tell from the outside -- I've seen a Board Member's kid kicked out (after many incidents), but I've also seen a criminal investigation halted (at GDS's request) when it led to a Board Member's house. Both happened under the previous HoS. What is striking is how resistant the Board is to performing its oversight role. Makes you wonder why people serve if they aren't willing to do the job. I assumed they felt honored, but maybe there are more tangible benefits (for some) as well.

[Anonymous]

GDS got too big and for long has tried to be a more diverse/progressive version of Sidwell. Honestly, this new development idea is stupid and a waste of time and money.

Private school as real estate developer=bad mix