Can anyone shed light on what is likely to change at Norwood with new leadership?

[Anonymous]

In the process of making some serious decisions and would love to hear from those on the inside about what is likely to happen with the new head of school.
Love the school, but also looking at other schools that have less of a community feel, but stronger academics.
On one hand the other schools feel colder. But realistically, Norwood needs to tighten up some areas. Not saying it has big issues, just see some troubling areas.
The other schools are some of the big three, but I just don't like them on a personal level.

[Anonymous]

Op, what troubling areas? We are seriously considering Norwood too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op, what troubling areas? We are seriously considering Norwood too.

Just look at the previous threads.
I am more concerned about the future of the school.

[Anonymous]

The school needs a capital campaign and I suspect the new head will tackle this head-on. The future looks good. The kids are happy and learning. What's not to like about Norwood?

[Anonymous]

I think the new head will have a positive impact, but more important, the MS principal/associate head and the new director of curriculum and instruction are making changes that should strengthen the academic program in a shorter timeframe. Math assessments, for example, are being revamped to make them more challenging/useful, and teachers are being trained to teach students how to tackle and solve more open-ended problems. I think we will also see more consistency across groups in the future and more effective capture and sharing of best practices. Overall, I am guardedly optimistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the new head will have a positive impact, but more important, the MS principal/associate head and the new director of curriculum and instruction are making changes that should strengthen the academic program in a shorter timeframe. Math assessments, for example, are being revamped to make them more challenging/useful, and teachers are being trained to teach students how to tackle and solve more open-ended problems. I think we will also see more consistency across groups in the future and more effective capture and sharing of best practices. Overall, I am guardedly optimistic.

Timeline is key. For a young child, a school taking three years to pull it all together is too long. Again, I loved the warmth in the school, but as you said, I am guarded about academics and teacher quality. I have heard that training teachers is not what they need. Teachers should have been trained when they were certified (they are not certified), so I am not happy about the idea of them training on my watch. I hope that there will be a staff overhaul with removal of the bad eggs. I have heard numbers from 6-12 questionable teachers in the LS alone. Also heard of a weak teacher evaluation process.
The schedule for the LS students is chaotic with many transitions that are wasteful. Transitions for EVERY class. Maybe a revamped schedule?
Anyway, this is really weighing on me. We liked so much about the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Timeline is key. For a young child, a school taking three years to pull it all together is too long. Again, I loved the warmth in the school, but as you said, I am guarded about academics and teacher quality. I have heard that training teachers is not what they need. Teachers should have been trained when they were certified (they are not certified), so I am not happy about the idea of them training on my watch. I hope that there will be a staff overhaul with removal of the bad eggs. I have heard numbers from 6-12 questionable teachers in the LS alone. Also heard of a weak teacher evaluation process.
The schedule for the LS students is chaotic with many transitions that are wasteful. Transitions for EVERY class. Maybe a revamped schedule?
Anyway, this is really weighing on me. We liked so much about the school.

Overall, I think the new team has a welcome sense of urgency. The teacher evaluation process has been strengthened since the new MS principal arrived, and some teachers have left (including the only poor teacher my kids have had--otherwise, they have been excellent). In any case, based on our experience and that of our friends' children, I think your 6-12 number represents a significant exaggeration. As for training, I disagree with your position that teachers should be trained when/if they are certified. Training should be continuous, so yes, some of that will happen on your watch.

I also disagree with your view of the schedule. I don't see it as chaotic. A lot of thought goes into the schedule, and the vast majority of students adapt easily to it. I agree that the transitions are time-consuming, and different ideas have been floated for reducing them, such as having fewer longer periods, but they can also be beneficial for kids who need to be able to get up and move at regular intervals. In addition, they help students learn to become more responsible for themselves and their movements. That said, the schedule may change in future years to reduce the number of transitions. I don't say this out of any insider knowledge but because I know it is always under evaluation.

One other thing to keep in mind--both in regard to the schedule and more broadly--is that sometimes there are tradeoffs that cannot be avoided. Norwood's schedule is more complicated than the schedules at some other schools because the admin tries to fit a lot into the day and the week. For example, LS students have art, music, and PE more frequently at Norwood than at Sidwell, as well as daily chapel. I think Sidwell spends more time on academics (and it may also have somewhat longer periods for specials). Neither approach is right or wrong. Or to take another example, GDS doesn't start foreign language instruction until 3rd grade whereas Spanish starts at Norwood in K. So GDS can allocate that time in other ways. Also, Norwood has ability grouping for reading and math in most grades., which requires more transitions than having those subjects taught in homeroom. I'm not saying that you should want ability grouping or Spanish in K; I'm somewhat agnostic about both (especially the Spanish). But if you do, you're going to have a more complicated schedule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Timeline is key. For a young child, a school taking three years to pull it all together is too long. Again, I loved the warmth in the school, but as you said, I am guarded about academics and teacher quality. I have heard that training teachers is not what they need. Teachers should have been trained when they were certified (they are not certified), so I am not happy about the idea of them training on my watch. I hope that there will be a staff overhaul with removal of the bad eggs. I have heard numbers from 6-12 questionable teachers in the LS alone. Also heard of a weak teacher evaluation process.
The schedule for the LS students is chaotic with many transitions that are wasteful. Transitions for EVERY class. Maybe a revamped schedule?
Anyway, this is really weighing on me. We liked so much about the school.

Overall, I think the new team has a welcome sense of urgency. The teacher evaluation process has been strengthened since the new MS principal arrived, and some teachers have left (including the only poor teacher my kids have had--otherwise, they have been excellent). In any case, based on our experience and that of our friends' children, I think your 6-12 number represents a significant exaggeration. As for training, I disagree with your position that teachers should be trained when/if they are certified. Training should be continuous, so yes, some of that will happen on your watch.

I also disagree with your view of the schedule. I don't see it as chaotic. A lot of thought goes into the schedule, and the vast majority of students adapt easily to it. I agree that the transitions are time-consuming, and different ideas have been floated for reducing them, such as having fewer longer periods, but they can also be beneficial for kids who need to be able to get up and move at regular intervals. In addition, they help students learn to become more responsible for themselves and their movements. That said, the schedule may change in future years to reduce the number of transitions. I don't say this out of any insider knowledge but because I know it is always under evaluation.

One other thing to keep in mind--both in regard to the schedule and more broadly--is that sometimes there are tradeoffs that cannot be avoided. Norwood's schedule is more complicated than the schedules at some other schools because the admin tries to fit a lot into the day and the week. For example, LS students have art, music, and PE more frequently at Norwood than at Sidwell, as well as daily chapel. I think Sidwell spends more time on academics (and it may also have somewhat longer periods for specials). Neither approach is right or wrong. Or to take another example, GDS doesn't start foreign language instruction until 3rd grade whereas Spanish starts at Norwood in K. So GDS can allocate that time in other ways. Also, Norwood has ability grouping for reading and math in most grades., which requires more transitions than having those subjects taught in homeroom. I'm not saying that you should want ability grouping or Spanish in K; I'm somewhat agnostic about both (especially the Spanish). But if you do, you're going to have a more complicated schedule.

But with the transitions you reach a point of diminishing returns. If they want the ability grouping then maybe they need to cut down on specials, or if they need the specials then cut the ability grouping. I have heard from insiders that consultants have told the school that the schedule is too busy for young children and that the ability grouping is achieving little. Yes, a flammable issue. That said, I just want to see something moving in the right direction soon. Bump up academics, better teachers, fewer transitions...something.
BTW, the number of teachers was from one parent who said that at that tuition, all of the teachers should be excellent not fair. There are the bad ones, but many are just fair. And some have had little or no past training and little continuing education. They get paid poorly, so the school might have trouble attracting the better ones.

[Anonymous]

It is totally untrue that teachers in Norwood are poorly paid. Norwood's salary scale is at the top range of private schools in this area. Just attend a budget briefing instead of relying on hearsay. I do not support change for the sake of change. I happen to like ability grouping for math and reading.

[Anonymous]

I am hopeful with the new head coming in. We chose Norwood specifically for the ability grouping. My dd is very bright and was reading at 4. My ds, much slower and needed more phonics instruction. The ability grouping is key at the young age because reading is developmental and the kids are all over the place. Transitions can be hard for some kids, my son needs to move so it had helped with that. I wish they would have a stronger math program. The new head coming in just had his old school switch to Singapore math and there is a movement amongst the parents to up the math curriculum.

Teachers: there are a couple of older teachers that just need to retire. The bigger issue is the head of the lower school. She has alientated a bunch of parents and even though I don't personally have an issue with her, I have many friends that are leaving the school primarily because of her. The hope is that the new head will act quickly and remove the lower school head immediately. Better to put an interim person in then have her.

Dd is now in middle school, and it is very strong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is totally untrue that teachers in Norwood are poorly paid. Norwood's salary scale is at the top range of private schools in this area. Just attend a budget briefing instead of relying on hearsay. I do not support change for the sake of change. I happen to like ability grouping for math and reading.

All private schools pay poorly, so even if you are at the top of the heap, the pay stinks, and the bennies can't compete with the public system.

[Anonymous]

If you have kids, tuition remission is a pretty valuable benefit.

[Anonymous]

They screwed up when they had an offer to merge with Bullis. They obviously now regret going it alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They screwed up when they had an offer to merge with Bullis. They obviously now regret going it alone.

? Two different schools. What merger?

[Anonymous]

Just don't like how there are so many teachers who have archaic ideas about how to do things. Worrisome.