SSFS HOS leaving

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “unable to cover payroll” bit is simply not true.

Why did they put on a hiring freeze and lay more staff off then? Seems like that would indicate they can't cover payroll. That's how that message read.

If the school is struggling with enrollment, it would be irresponsible to hire staff that you don't have available work for due to student ratios. This tends impact extra and co-curricular roles first.

They were not losing extra and co-curriculars. They lost homeroom teachers, English, Humanities, History, Math along with Spanish and other teachers (just to name a few I know happened). To say you don't need to replace those teachers seems a stretch. If they lost so many students that they can lose 30+ teachers, counselors etc and not need to replace those positions, I'm not sure what that means. How many students are left?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “unable to cover payroll” bit is simply not true.

Why did they put on a hiring freeze and lay more staff off then? Seems like that would indicate they can't cover payroll. That's how that message read.

If the school is struggling with enrollment, it would be irresponsible to hire staff that you don't have available work for due to student ratios. This tends impact extra and co-curricular roles first.

They were not losing extra and co-curriculars. They lost homeroom teachers, English, Humanities, History, Math along with Spanish and other teachers (just to name a few I know happened). To say you don't need to replace those teachers seems a stretch. If they lost so many students that they can lose 30+ teachers, counselors etc and not need to replace those positions, I'm not sure what that means. How many students are left?

Some of those core academic positions were hired for back in the spring. You wouldn't see them on the website now because the vacancy has been filled.

I'm not saying everything is sunshine and rainbows at SSFS, but the sky isn't falling either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “unable to cover payroll” bit is simply not true.

Why did they put on a hiring freeze and lay more staff off then? Seems like that would indicate they can't cover payroll. That's how that message read.

If the school is struggling with enrollment, it would be irresponsible to hire staff that you don't have available work for due to student ratios. This tends impact extra and co-curricular roles first.

They were not losing extra and co-curriculars. They lost homeroom teachers, English, Humanities, History, Math along with Spanish and other teachers (just to name a few I know happened). To say you don't need to replace those teachers seems a stretch. If they lost so many students that they can lose 30+ teachers, counselors etc and not need to replace those positions, I'm not sure what that means. How many students are left?

Some of those core academic positions were hired for back in the spring. You wouldn't see them on the website now because the vacancy has been filled.

I'm not saying everything is sunshine and rainbows at SSFS, but the sky isn't falling either.

I think that remains to be seen. What I do know is that they need to send another email beyond “hey so Rodney left and we have a hodgepodge of people covering-cool? ok bye!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have experience with another school that is dealing with a similar situation (toxic environment caused by narcissist(s) in leadership position(s)).

Annual employee reviews don’t seem to be meaningful at this school, especially for admin.

Implementing a 360 review for senior administrators where people at all levels gave feedback on job performance might help the board make sure people in key positions are doing their jobs and have the institution’s best interest at heart.

These people can get away with a lot with zero repercussions.

Just before the end of the school year RG had a 360 review input request sent out. I don't know if the responses went to the board or to RG though. But never saw this in the last few years. There was no avenue for feed back to the board of trustees. I think this was a red flag. Requests to contact BOT members was always met with, work through the hos, the board doesnt interfere with hos decisions, yet no explanation on how to provide feedback on the hos himself then? None of the constituents had direct contact to the board. All feedback had to pipe through RG himself. Seemed like another failing of the board.

Many, many folks went to the BOT. Yes, the Board initially said talk to HOS. That is true. That doesn’t mean people gave up. I know many folks who had direct contact with members of the BOT. And it made all the difference in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have experience with another school that is dealing with a similar situation (toxic environment caused by narcissist(s) in leadership position(s)).

Annual employee reviews don’t seem to be meaningful at this school, especially for admin.

Implementing a 360 review for senior administrators where people at all levels gave feedback on job performance might help the board make sure people in key positions are doing their jobs and have the institution’s best interest at heart.

These people can get away with a lot with zero repercussions.

Just before the end of the school year RG had a 360 review input request sent out. I don't know if the responses went to the board or to RG though. But never saw this in the last few years. There was no avenue for feed back to the board of trustees. I think this was a red flag. Requests to contact BOT members was always met with, work through the hos, the board doesnt interfere with hos decisions, yet no explanation on how to provide feedback on the hos himself then? None of the constituents had direct contact to the board. All feedback had to pipe through RG himself. Seemed like another failing of the board.

Many, many folks went to the BOT. Yes, the Board initially said talk to HOS. That is true. That doesn’t mean people gave up. I know many folks who had direct contact with members of the BOT. And it made all the difference in the end.

Honestly, good job! I got the email saying “leave the board alone” or whatever this spring and just rolled my eyes. I’m impressed people kept up pressure despite a culture that did not in any way open frank feedback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “unable to cover payroll” bit is simply not true.

Why did they put on a hiring freeze and lay more staff off then? Seems like that would indicate they can't cover payroll. That's how that message read.

If the school is struggling with enrollment, it would be irresponsible to hire staff that you don't have available work for due to student ratios. This tends impact extra and co-curricular roles first.

They were not losing extra and co-curriculars. They lost homeroom teachers, English, Humanities, History, Math along with Spanish and other teachers (just to name a few I know happened). To say you don't need to replace those teachers seems a stretch. If they lost so many students that they can lose 30+ teachers, counselors etc and not need to replace those positions, I'm not sure what that means. How many students are left?

Some of those core academic positions were hired for back in the spring. You wouldn't see them on the website now because the vacancy has been filled.

I'm not saying everything is sunshine and rainbows at SSFS, but the sky isn't falling either.

This is precisely why families are owed clear, detailed and rapid information right now. Families see announcements (and often not) of all the people leaving. But nowhere can an official list of departures be found.

There are no announcements of positions successfully filled, so who knows they have been?

There are no list of current vacancies, so who knows what those are.

Then the week after school let’s out a message goes out that due to withdrawals, a hiring freeze is in effect along with 7 more positions but. But no information on what positions the freeze effects. So again where are families to know what the real damage is?

You’ve got the interim LS principal (after cutting two grades and giving those to the MS principal) suddenly taking over as interim head of school. Yet no clarity on how additional work load will effect how well these ppl can operate. If there are no empty positions because 1 person is doing the job of 3 or close sizes are doubling, that’s hardly a good setup. But again how would families know? It’s all speculation until the school sends out anything which they haven’t.

The sky isn’t falling out? Maybe. Or maybe it is. Both would be speculation.

And the list goes on. Are they in debt? Can they complete their 4 million in repairs? Pay off the US loan? No one knows. Have 50/80/100 students pulled out? Families can only speculate, guess, create and circulate rumors. This thread would not be this long if families received the info they are owed and didn’t have to scrounge around for anything they can find out.

Often admins say parents need to let them do their job and not be poking around like they need to approve every admin decision. This is true under normal circumstances. When admins demonstrate they are capable you trust them and don’t question and complain about everything. But this is not that situation. The incompetence and coverups have been going on for multiple years so families have every right to know exactly what’s going on right now.

The longer it takes for information to go out the less confidence in that information, cause it just seems like it’s another spin for damage control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “unable to cover payroll” bit is simply not true.

Why did they put on a hiring freeze and lay more staff off then? Seems like that would indicate they can't cover payroll. That's how that message read.

If the school is struggling with enrollment, it would be irresponsible to hire staff that you don't have available work for due to student ratios. This tends impact extra and co-curricular roles first.

They were not losing extra and co-curriculars. They lost homeroom teachers, English, Humanities, History, Math along with Spanish and other teachers (just to name a few I know happened). To say you don't need to replace those teachers seems a stretch. If they lost so many students that they can lose 30+ teachers, counselors etc and not need to replace those positions, I'm not sure what that means. How many students are left?

I should have noted that the number of sections can be reduced too. For example, in LS if you have two 1st grades, you'd reduce to one. In US if you had 3 sections of English across all four grades and low enrollment determines you only need 2 sections, then you have an extra English teacher that you don't need.

[Anonymous]

If ever there was a moment for a crisis communication expert - now would be the time. During covid SSFS did a good job of discussing regularly with the parents what they were doing and why (at that time the head wasn't Rodney). Once Rodney was hired, that type of communication was drastically reduced. Right now they need to hold meetings for parents, answer questions and provide an overview of the plan. My guess is they don't have anyone that can take on that responsibility - or they are attempting to figure out how to get things in order by September with what they do have. Its such a shame, most of our time at SSFS was wonderful - but all of that was before Rodney started. The students and teachers continued to be wonderful as did the families. But poor leadership really can changes things for the worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “unable to cover payroll” bit is simply not true.

Why did they put on a hiring freeze and lay more staff off then? Seems like that would indicate they can't cover payroll. That's how that message read.

If the school is struggling with enrollment, it would be irresponsible to hire staff that you don't have available work for due to student ratios. This tends impact extra and co-curricular roles first.

They were not losing extra and co-curriculars. They lost homeroom teachers, English, Humanities, History, Math along with Spanish and other teachers (just to name a few I know happened). To say you don't need to replace those teachers seems a stretch. If they lost so many students that they can lose 30+ teachers, counselors etc and not need to replace those positions, I'm not sure what that means. How many students are left?

Some of those core academic positions were hired for back in the spring. You wouldn't see them on the website now because the vacancy has been filled.

I'm not saying everything is sunshine and rainbows at SSFS, but the sky isn't falling either.

This is precisely why families are owed clear, detailed and rapid information right now. Families see announcements (and often not) of all the people leaving. But nowhere can an official list of departures be found.

There are no announcements of positions successfully filled, so who knows they have been?

There are no list of current vacancies, so who knows what those are.

Then the week after school let’s out a message goes out that due to withdrawals, a hiring freeze is in effect along with 7 more positions but. But no information on what positions the freeze effects. So again where are families to know what the real damage is?

You’ve got the interim LS principal (after cutting two grades and giving those to the MS principal) suddenly taking over as interim head of school. Yet no clarity on how additional work load will effect how well these ppl can operate. If there are no empty positions because 1 person is doing the job of 3 or close sizes are doubling, that’s hardly a good setup. But again how would families know? It’s all speculation until the school sends out anything which they haven’t.

The sky isn’t falling out? Maybe. Or maybe it is. Both would be speculation.

And the list goes on. Are they in debt? Can they complete their 4 million in repairs? Pay off the US loan? No one knows. Have 50/80/100 students pulled out? Families can only speculate, guess, create and circulate rumors. This thread would not be this long if families received the info they are owed and didn’t have to scrounge around for anything they can find out.

Often admins say parents need to let them do their job and not be poking around like they need to approve every admin decision. This is true under normal circumstances. When admins demonstrate they are capable you trust them and don’t question and complain about everything. But this is not that situation. The incompetence and coverups have been going on for multiple years so families have every right to know exactly what’s going on right now.

The longer it takes for information to go out the less confidence in that information, cause it just seems like it’s another spin for damage control.

If you want to see the list of vacancies, it is on the school website and always has been. Departing teachers were announced in divisional newsletters. An email was sent to LS families detailing who was leaving and who was replacing them/who was hired. The school could not announce who was let go out of respect and privacy for those whom it affected. I’m sure clarity on things is forthcoming. It has been less than a week since we got this news. I assume that the school is working to address all of these questions and just needs a little time.

[Anonymous]

The school website still says 8:1 child:teacher ratio. So I hope this holds true because we chose the school for its small class sizes.

[Anonymous]

There seems to be a lot of guessing about the number of teachers leaving and much speculation as to why. This isn't productive.

That said, all parents have a right to request or even demand that questions be answered and concerns listened to. No school whether it's free or has a 40K price tag should be shutting parents out or ignoring us. The students are OUR children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The school website still says 8:1 child:teacher ratio. So I hope this holds true because we chose the school for its small class sizes.

I don’t think it was 8:1 even before all this. 15 was more like the class size. Now if they are combining sections it might get bigger but not smaller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “unable to cover payroll” bit is simply not true.

Why did they put on a hiring freeze and lay more staff off then? Seems like that would indicate they can't cover payroll. That's how that message read.

If the school is struggling with enrollment, it would be irresponsible to hire staff that you don't have available work for due to student ratios. This tends impact extra and co-curricular roles first.

They were not losing extra and co-curriculars. They lost homeroom teachers, English, Humanities, History, Math along with Spanish and other teachers (just to name a few I know happened). To say you don't need to replace those teachers seems a stretch. If they lost so many students that they can lose 30+ teachers, counselors etc and not need to replace those positions, I'm not sure what that means. How many students are left?

Some of those core academic positions were hired for back in the spring. You wouldn't see them on the website now because the vacancy has been filled.

I'm not saying everything is sunshine and rainbows at SSFS, but the sky isn't falling either.

This is precisely why families are owed clear, detailed and rapid information right now. Families see announcements (and often not) of all the people leaving. But nowhere can an official list of departures be found.

There are no announcements of positions successfully filled, so who knows they have been?

There are no list of current vacancies, so who knows what those are.

Then the week after school let’s out a message goes out that due to withdrawals, a hiring freeze is in effect along with 7 more positions but. But no information on what positions the freeze effects. So again where are families to know what the real damage is?

You’ve got the interim LS principal (after cutting two grades and giving those to the MS principal) suddenly taking over as interim head of school. Yet no clarity on how additional work load will effect how well these ppl can operate. If there are no empty positions because 1 person is doing the job of 3 or close sizes are doubling, that’s hardly a good setup. But again how would families know? It’s all speculation until the school sends out anything which they haven’t.

The sky isn’t falling out? Maybe. Or maybe it is. Both would be speculation.

And the list goes on. Are they in debt? Can they complete their 4 million in repairs? Pay off the US loan? No one knows. Have 50/80/100 students pulled out? Families can only speculate, guess, create and circulate rumors. This thread would not be this long if families received the info they are owed and didn’t have to scrounge around for anything they can find out.

Often admins say parents need to let them do their job and not be poking around like they need to approve every admin decision. This is true under normal circumstances. When admins demonstrate they are capable you trust them and don’t question and complain about everything. But this is not that situation. The incompetence and coverups have been going on for multiple years so families have every right to know exactly what’s going on right now.

The longer it takes for information to go out the less confidence in that information, cause it just seems like it’s another spin for damage control.

If you want to see the list of vacancies, it is on the school website and always has been. Departing teachers were announced in divisional newsletters. An email was sent to LS families detailing who was leaving and who was replacing them/who was hired. The school could not announce who was let go out of respect and privacy for those whom it affected. I’m sure clarity on things is forthcoming. It has been less than a week since we got this news. I assume that the school is working to address all of these questions and just needs a little time.

To say it’s been less than a week seems disingenuous. Surely the board saw this coming for more than a week? The 1sy message may have come out last week, but I sure hope that isn’t when the school just started to come up with a plan! Thinking the school has no plan yet because it’s “only been a week” doesn’t seem particularly reassuring either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have experience with another school that is dealing with a similar situation (toxic environment caused by narcissist(s) in leadership position(s)).

Annual employee reviews don’t seem to be meaningful at this school, especially for admin.

Implementing a 360 review for senior administrators where people at all levels gave feedback on job performance might help the board make sure people in key positions are doing their jobs and have the institution’s best interest at heart.

These people can get away with a lot with zero repercussions.

Just before the end of the school year RG had a 360 review input request sent out. I don't know if the responses went to the board or to RG though. But never saw this in the last few years. There was no avenue for feed back to the board of trustees. I think this was a red flag. Requests to contact BOT members was always met with, work through the hos, the board doesnt interfere with hos decisions, yet no explanation on how to provide feedback on the hos himself then? None of the constituents had direct contact to the board. All feedback had to pipe through RG himself. Seemed like another failing of the board.

Many, many folks went to the BOT. Yes, the Board initially said talk to HOS. That is true. That doesn’t mean people gave up. I know many folks who had direct contact with members of the BOT. And it made all the difference in the end.

Honestly, good job! I got the email saying “leave the board alone” or whatever this spring and just rolled my eyes. I’m impressed people kept up pressure despite a culture that did not in any way open frank feedback.

What email?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “unable to cover payroll” bit is simply not true.

Why did they put on a hiring freeze and lay more staff off then? Seems like that would indicate they can't cover payroll. That's how that message read.

If the school is struggling with enrollment, it would be irresponsible to hire staff that you don't have available work for due to student ratios. This tends impact extra and co-curricular roles first.

They were not losing extra and co-curriculars. They lost homeroom teachers, English, Humanities, History, Math along with Spanish and other teachers (just to name a few I know happened). To say you don't need to replace those teachers seems a stretch. If they lost so many students that they can lose 30+ teachers, counselors etc and not need to replace those positions, I'm not sure what that means. How many students are left?

Some of those core academic positions were hired for back in the spring. You wouldn't see them on the website now because the vacancy has been filled.

I'm not saying everything is sunshine and rainbows at SSFS, but the sky isn't falling either.

This is precisely why families are owed clear, detailed and rapid information right now. Families see announcements (and often not) of all the people leaving. But nowhere can an official list of departures be found.

There are no announcements of positions successfully filled, so who knows they have been?

There are no list of current vacancies, so who knows what those are.

Then the week after school let’s out a message goes out that due to withdrawals, a hiring freeze is in effect along with 7 more positions but. But no information on what positions the freeze effects. So again where are families to know what the real damage is?

You’ve got the interim LS principal (after cutting two grades and giving those to the MS principal) suddenly taking over as interim head of school. Yet no clarity on how additional work load will effect how well these ppl can operate. If there are no empty positions because 1 person is doing the job of 3 or close sizes are doubling, that’s hardly a good setup. But again how would families know? It’s all speculation until the school sends out anything which they haven’t.

The sky isn’t falling out? Maybe. Or maybe it is. Both would be speculation.

And the list goes on. Are they in debt? Can they complete their 4 million in repairs? Pay off the US loan? No one knows. Have 50/80/100 students pulled out? Families can only speculate, guess, create and circulate rumors. This thread would not be this long if families received the info they are owed and didn’t have to scrounge around for anything they can find out.

Often admins say parents need to let them do their job and not be poking around like they need to approve every admin decision. This is true under normal circumstances. When admins demonstrate they are capable you trust them and don’t question and complain about everything. But this is not that situation. The incompetence and coverups have been going on for multiple years so families have every right to know exactly what’s going on right now.

The longer it takes for information to go out the less confidence in that information, cause it just seems like it’s another spin for damage control.

THIS. The BOT owes familes answers. NOW.