SSFS HOS leaving

[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?

Not sure what you mean. This discussion is about RGs tenure as hos and the effect his sudden resignation is having on ssfs. No one is discussing his personal life. And what happens at ssfs is everyone’s concern cause their children go to this school and as someone said we are paying hundred thousands of dollars for quality education.

[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.

So is the meeting just with families who have been attending the affinity group or all families of that ethnicity? I know that not always do families of. Particular group attend the affinity group meetings so it wasn’t clear if the school is inviting everyone or just those who attend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So is the meeting just with families who have been attending the affinity group or all families of that ethnicity? I know that not always do families of. Particular group attend the affinity group meetings so it wasn’t clear if the school is inviting everyone or just those who attend?

This seems like a good question to ask Christine or the Clerk of the Board directly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Is it possible that this affinity group had concerns about the school pre-RG, those concerns were addressed during the RG-era and now post-RG they are concerned things will return to the way it was?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Is it possible that this affinity group had concerns about the school pre-RG, those concerns were addressed during the RG-era and now post-RG they are concerned things will return to the way it was?

Ya’ll are really out here being angry that POC got the second date/time for a listening session. It’s wild.

We have no idea why that affinity group got “priority” but maybe just decenter yourself for a moment and trust that there is a reason, but either way you’ll still get your listening session! Jeez.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Is it possible that this affinity group had concerns about the school pre-RG, those concerns were addressed during the RG-era and now post-RG they are concerned things will return to the way it was?

Ya’ll are really out here being angry that POC got the second date/time for a listening session. It’s wild.

We have no idea why that affinity group got “priority” but maybe just decenter yourself for a moment and trust that there is a reason, but either way you’ll still get your listening session! Jeez.

I don’t think it’s anger, it’s more just perplexed. The school normally doesn’t call out a specific group for communications, and this is oddly specific. As you said, in the end it should even out (though it seems unlikely they would schedule based on other affinity groups), but to go out of the way to single out one right away makes it seems like there is a reason associated with that rather than random order selection. I think that’s all people are wondering about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Is it possible that this affinity group had concerns about the school pre-RG, those concerns were addressed during the RG-era and now post-RG they are concerned things will return to the way it was?

Ya’ll are really out here being angry that POC got the second date/time for a listening session. It’s wild.

We have no idea why that affinity group got “priority” but maybe just decenter yourself for a moment and trust that there is a reason, but either way you’ll still get your listening session! Jeez.

I don’t think it’s anger, it’s more just perplexed. The school normally doesn’t call out a specific group for communications, and this is oddly specific. As you said, in the end it should even out (though it seems unlikely they would schedule based on other affinity groups), but to go out of the way to single out one right away makes it seems like there is a reason associated with that rather than random order selection. I think that’s all people are wondering about.

They are responding to something you are not privy to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Is it possible that this affinity group had concerns about the school pre-RG, those concerns were addressed during the RG-era and now post-RG they are concerned things will return to the way it was?

Ya’ll are really out here being angry that POC got the second date/time for a listening session. It’s wild.

We have no idea why that affinity group got “priority” but maybe just decenter yourself for a moment and trust that there is a reason, but either way you’ll still get your listening session! Jeez.

That's the whole problem right now. I don't.

[Anonymous]

Everyone will get a turn, and probably multiple turns. The letter specifically invited parents to send emails with questions, so that is an individual invite right there. Looking forward to hearing the plan for the fall!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Is it possible that this affinity group had concerns about the school pre-RG, those concerns were addressed during the RG-era and now post-RG they are concerned things will return to the way it was?

Ya’ll are really out here being angry that POC got the second date/time for a listening session. It’s wild.

We have no idea why that affinity group got “priority” but maybe just decenter yourself for a moment and trust that there is a reason, but either way you’ll still get your listening session! Jeez.

I don’t think it’s anger, it’s more just perplexed. The school normally doesn’t call out a specific group for communications, and this is oddly specific. As you said, in the end it should even out (though it seems unlikely they would schedule based on other affinity groups), but to go out of the way to single out one right away makes it seems like there is a reason associated with that rather than random order selection. I think that’s all people are wondering about.

They are responding to something you are not privy to.

That’s the point. Lack of transparency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If they lose enough enrollment the school is going to get even more expensive a55 for those who remain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Is it possible that this affinity group had concerns about the school pre-RG, those concerns were addressed during the RG-era and now post-RG they are concerned things will return to the way it was?

Ya’ll are really out here being angry that POC got the second date/time for a listening session. It’s wild.

We have no idea why that affinity group got “priority” but maybe just decenter yourself for a moment and trust that there is a reason, but either way you’ll still get your listening session! Jeez.

I don’t think it’s anger, it’s more just perplexed. The school normally doesn’t call out a specific group for communications, and this is oddly specific. As you said, in the end it should even out (though it seems unlikely they would schedule based on other affinity groups), but to go out of the way to single out one right away makes it seems like there is a reason associated with that rather than random order selection. I think that’s all people are wondering about.

They are responding to something you are not privy to.

That’s the point. Lack of transparency.

No organization could be totally transparent. If you want participation from your constituents, not everything can be shared with everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If they lose enough enrollment the school is going to get even more expensive a55 for those who remain.

That’s not a sustainable strategy. Families will always do a cost/benefit analysis. Ssfs is already higher than the schools around them. The tuition increases of the last few years (done no doubt to cover for wherever financial mismanagement that put them in a hole) already pushes them outside of the cost benefit threshold. There are schools at a lower price point with more class choices, better athletics programs, or schools at the same price point with order of magnitude better programs all around. All you have to do is a little research and their tuition already doesn’t match the services they are providing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Is it possible that this affinity group had concerns about the school pre-RG, those concerns were addressed during the RG-era and now post-RG they are concerned things will return to the way it was?

Ya’ll are really out here being angry that POC got the second date/time for a listening session. It’s wild.

We have no idea why that affinity group got “priority” but maybe just decenter yourself for a moment and trust that there is a reason, but either way you’ll still get your listening session! Jeez.

I don’t think it’s anger, it’s more just perplexed. The school normally doesn’t call out a specific group for communications, and this is oddly specific. As you said, in the end it should even out (though it seems unlikely they would schedule based on other affinity groups), but to go out of the way to single out one right away makes it seems like there is a reason associated with that rather than random order selection. I think that’s all people are wondering about.

They are responding to something you are not privy to.

Actually that was my first thought on seeing schedule, not saying it’s accurate but I was wondering if rg felt there was some anti-black bias involved in his departure or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Is it possible that this affinity group had concerns about the school pre-RG, those concerns were addressed during the RG-era and now post-RG they are concerned things will return to the way it was?

Ya’ll are really out here being angry that POC got the second date/time for a listening session. It’s wild.

We have no idea why that affinity group got “priority” but maybe just decenter yourself for a moment and trust that there is a reason, but either way you’ll still get your listening session! Jeez.

I don’t think it’s anger, it’s more just perplexed. The school normally doesn’t call out a specific group for communications, and this is oddly specific. As you said, in the end it should even out (though it seems unlikely they would schedule based on other affinity groups), but to go out of the way to single out one right away makes it seems like there is a reason associated with that rather than random order selection. I think that’s all people are wondering about.

They are responding to something you are not privy to.

Actually that was my first thought on seeing schedule, not saying it’s accurate but I was wondering if rg felt there was some anti-black bias involved in his departure or something.

No doubt he’s going to make it seem like that’s the reason.