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.