SSFS HOS leaving

[Anonymous]

Nothing the BOT does will make everyone happy, as evidenced by people already upset by the order of listening sessions, but we should be happy that the new leadership is willing to listen. That’s more than can be said for their predecessors. I think this is a really good start, and the email confirmed that they are solidifying a plan that will be communicated by the end of the week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just jumping in to point out that we don't know who actually initiated the meeting with the Black Parents Affinity Group. It is equally possible that the affinity group requested the meeting and not vice versa.

Regardless, for the first time in a long time, it seems like people are able to voice their concerns openly to school leaders and the BOT is committed to building a stronger community. It will not be perfect, there is a lot to fix. But showing some faith in, and giving some grace to, well-intended people trying to lead us through a difficult time would better serve the community rather than criticizing and assuming failure before they've had time to fully share and implement their plan.

I really don’t think it’s appropriate to police people’s reactions like this-that’s been a large part of the problem for the last few years.

People have been paying (depending on the age of their kids) literally hundreds of thousands of dollars to this school and some are dismayed at what their child has gotten in return.

I think it’s time the BOT shows some grace toward the student and parents rather than the reverse.

[Anonymous]

I thought the Interim Board Chair's email was good. I don't at all like that Middle and Upper School parents have to be in one meeting, they're very different constituencies have very different concerns, etc. But as a step in the right direction I think it's good.

Interim's head's email was lame. Empty platitudes. I acknowledge that there was a lot she couldn't say or might not know how to say but as a previous poster so eloquently stated "this ain't it chief!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just jumping in to point out that we don't know who actually initiated the meeting with the Black Parents Affinity Group. It is equally possible that the affinity group requested the meeting and not vice versa.

Regardless, for the first time in a long time, it seems like people are able to voice their concerns openly to school leaders and the BOT is committed to building a stronger community. It will not be perfect, there is a lot to fix. But showing some faith in, and giving some grace to, well-intended people trying to lead us through a difficult time would better serve the community rather than criticizing and assuming failure before they've had time to fully share and implement their plan.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s a great look to offer a meeting to one affinity group and none of the others (and that affinity group before any of the larger groups of stakeholders.)

Yes, invite all the various small constituencies after meeting with the school community as a whole but this roll out makes it clear that at a basic level they don’t realize what huge disaster this is for the whole community.

My thoughts exactly!! I've been a co-facilitator of a different affinity group for the past two years and seeing that was a little bit of a gut punch. WTF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s a great look to offer a meeting to one affinity group and none of the others (and that affinity group before any of the larger groups of stakeholders.)

Yes, invite all the various small constituencies after meeting with the school community as a whole but this roll out makes it clear that at a basic level they don’t realize what huge disaster this is for the whole community.

My thoughts exactly!! I've been a co-facilitator of a different affinity group for the past two years and seeing that was a little bit of a gut punch. WTF.

I think these listening sessions are great and I'm glad to see they didn't spend too much time getting them organized.

And, I completely agreed with the above. This echoes some of the concerns already expressed in these comments- only one aspect of identity was ever prioritize under RG. Why is this one affinity group given preference over the others?

[Anonymous]

Is it possible that the Black families affinity group was meeting anyway and invited the school to attend?
I'm happy to know that we will have more information by the end of the week and that there are listening sessions. Usually they give us a chance to submit questions ahead of time, so perhaps that will be in the zoom links.

[Anonymous]

To address the question a few posts back: non-evangelical Quaker institutions in the US are resoundingly LGBTQ+-supportive, but we struggle badly in decentering whiteness. TBH I would take a plan to meet with a Black parent affinity group as a big plus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To address the question a few posts back: non-evangelical Quaker institutions in the US are resoundingly LGBTQ+-supportive, but we struggle badly in decentering whiteness. TBH I would take a plan to meet with a Black parent affinity group as a big plus.

I agree with your larger point but tbh first off I’d like to center having adequate teaching staff at this expensive a55 private school.

[Anonymous]

Do you all realize you are posting about someones's life? How would you feel if you were the subject of petty gossip? Don't you all have better things to do with your time and energy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you all realize you are posting about someones's life? How would you feel if you were the subject of petty gossip? Don't you all have better things to do with your time and energy?

Seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To address the question a few posts back: non-evangelical Quaker institutions in the US are resoundingly LGBTQ+-supportive, but we struggle badly in decentering whiteness. TBH I would take a plan to meet with a Black parent affinity group as a big plus.

+1

[Anonymous]

I’m talking about my kids’ school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you all realize you are posting about someones's life? How would you feel if you were the subject of petty gossip? Don't you all have better things to do with your time and energy?

This was never about one person. People are concerned about the welfare of SSFS and its students.

[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.

Glad to hear this, PP!