SSFS Closing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The people are who make the school. Not the empty buildings. We would have been happy in hartshorn and Moore hall. And now those fancy buildings will do who whet good?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is from August message from BOT:

It is important to share with you that SSFS is facing some financial challenges, and the board is working on several strategic questions related to:
the declining boarding program;
unfulfilled pledges to our last Capital Campaign (Light the Way, meant to support the Upper School Building); and,
significant repair and maintenance needed in our Performing Arts and Athletic Centers.

I’m not aware (outside of this board) of the acrimony with the former HoS, but I suspect that someone would be well within their rights to not fulfill a pledge if they felt like the mission/direction/leadership of the school deviated from when the pledge was made. It may be (and is) sh*tty, but it happens all the time with universities, schools and other not for profits.

Institutions are typically hot to trot for pledges because they can publicize it and the fundraisers often get credit at the time of the pledge. From my experience, it’s often presented as “the pledge is good for the institution but it doesn’t really bind you to anything, so we’d appreciate it if you would agree. And if something comes up, no obligation.”

I wouldn’t make a pledge that I didn’t intend to fulfill, but I’ve seen the “bindingness” to be grossly undersold to try to get the signature.

These pledges were lapsed under Tom Gibian whose campaign it was and was supposed to be done before change of heads. They were already behind when the HOS changed. The lapses were discovered under RG, not created under RG.

Many were a pledge of X per year for 5 years or whatever made the year before the change in HOS. Not that that’s an excuse for not honoring a commitment.

Not accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a brokenhearted student who has thrived there for over a decade, I would like some explanation in addition to... we ran out of money and we are letting you know now when its way too late to do anything. Our family has been blindsided. The teachers are some of the most genuine educators I have ever met, people with vocation who should have some information about why their jobs have been terminated and why their lives have been turned upside-down. In so many ways, SSFS walks the walk when it comes to values and community. Not perfect. Not expecting perfection, but I have seen them do right by a lot of people or at least try their best in situations where other schools would have thrown up their hands. I assumed the Board upheld similar values. That's on me for trusting and not verifying, not demanding more transparency, asking for financial reports. But I will humbly say, I didn"t even know what to demand. I dont know about boards or how a private school is run. I leave that to those whose skills lie in this area. I thought the Board was an extention of the fine, fine people I have had the honor to know personally, the heads of school and teachers, people who have cared for my kids while teaching them to write, analyze poetry, balance equations all while making the feel like they mattered, like they had something valuable to contribute to the world just by being themselves. If that doesn't "deserve" an explanation then I don't know what does. Pie in the sky sure. Naive, probably. But cynicism doesn't thrive inside me or SSFS.
This is simply too much damage, far too many people impacted negatively to offer such little information.

Well said… but sadly I doubt you’ll get a full explanation from the school. It’s certainly not the fault of the wonderful and caring teachers, who are in the same boat as you, with the unexpected closure upending their employment and lives.

As someone else said — one of the Quaker values is stewardship — to me, this means recognizing the value of the school to the community and preserving it for future generations. This includes making sure the educational and social/emotional experience is strong for students, but also — being fiscally responsible and not taking out too much debt (to finance the new upper school?) or otherwise overextending the school financially. This is on the Board and the heads of school.

(Former Feynman parent, so I feel what you’re going through)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2025 college admissions outcomes aren't even that great for SSFS. Maybe this is a blessing in disguise. Hope the families land somewhere soon and that everyone finds jobs.

Please. It's too early to even know what they are yet.

This is the class of 2025 class right here not one Top 20- https://www.instagram.com/ssfs2enior5/

Stop looking at schools like this. It is not:

1. Pay tuition to the right school
2. Get admission to the right college

You are hurting your child by seeing this all as an Ivy End Game.

Comments like this are why we left. People presume that if you talk about college placements and you have high academic expectations that you're a punch drunk ivy or bust tiger mom. We choose a private for many reasons and one of those reasons are college placement and developing smart rigorous college preparation and eventual life success. Maybe not all families have these objectives but enough of us do and independent schools must consider this in their enrollment calculus. The former HOS was just blatantly not a serious choice to pilot a rigorous academic curriculum. He was more focused on social justice witch-hunting. It was not a serious place.

Stop lying to your selves and recruit ENOUGH families that can pay and return and who will expect an aligned return on their investment. This is the crude reality. I'm sorry if this offends you who do not agree and maybe you see our transactional expectations as some kind of crude darwinian grab for eminence but it is not. It is just a simple expectation that our children are realistic about their future. Radicals will see this and respond in hyperbole like the above comment. We are not exceptional people like so many of you. We are simple, we have simple priorities and we would just like to live in peace. That is why we came to America.

Not true about the previous head. And the school was never known for academic rigor. The opposite actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In bankruptcy it's possible these pledges could be enforced.

Um, no it’s not. No judge is going to rule that a would-be donor has to throw money into an abyss to satisfy a creditor unrelated to the intent of their would-be contribution. That is simply absurd.

I think it depends on the wording of the pledge. But yes, satisfying creditors by collecting on valid debts is part of bankruptcy. If the pledge was for funds to do a certain thing, and the school did that thing, how is it fair for the pledge to just never pay?

A pledge is an agreement where a donor promises to make a future donation, but it's not a legally binding contract in Maryland.

[Anonymous]

The construction of the upper school was already well under way while TG was there. It is literally named after TG’s family estate. Not a cheerleader of either prior heads - they both had their strengths and weaknesses - like all leaders and humans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question.

Parents are upset and demanding answers, but what does the school actually owe you (other than, possibly, deposits paid for the 2025-2026 school year)? They are finishing this school year and maintaining student records. This isn't like Feynman where the school stopped operating mid-year and people lost tuition money.

I completely understand that people are upset, but why do they think that they are owed additional information?

They just went through an entire recruiting process, extended offers and took deposits. Full well knowing this was going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is from August message from BOT:

It is important to share with you that SSFS is facing some financial challenges, and the board is working on several strategic questions related to:
the declining boarding program;
unfulfilled pledges to our last Capital Campaign (Light the Way, meant to support the Upper School Building); and,
significant repair and maintenance needed in our Performing Arts and Athletic Centers.

I’m not aware (outside of this board) of the acrimony with the former HoS, but I suspect that someone would be well within their rights to not fulfill a pledge if they felt like the mission/direction/leadership of the school deviated from when the pledge was made. It may be (and is) sh*tty, but it happens all the time with universities, schools and other not for profits.

Institutions are typically hot to trot for pledges because they can publicize it and the fundraisers often get credit at the time of the pledge. From my experience, it’s often presented as “the pledge is good for the institution but it doesn’t really bind you to anything, so we’d appreciate it if you would agree. And if something comes up, no obligation.”

I wouldn’t make a pledge that I didn’t intend to fulfill, but I’ve seen the “bindingness” to be grossly undersold to try to get the signature.

These pledges were lapsed under Tom Gibian whose campaign it was and was supposed to be done before change of heads. They were already behind when the HOS changed. The lapses were discovered under RG, not created under RG.

Okay (again to RG cheerleader) let’s say the lapse was discovered under RG- before construction begun - which did occur UNDER RG. What stopped RG who was the leadership to say “hey so it looks like we haven’t received these pledges, we should hit the pause button till we do”? You’re saying RG was forced to continue down a bad path set by TG cause he was powerless to do the right thing for the school as its new head?

The building was finished before RG even got there. It opened to students under RG when they returned from the pandemic. Not an RG cheerleader. I just like facts.

That’s literally a lie. TG left at the end of the 2019-2020 school year. The pandemic started that March.
Groundbreaking for construction was during that summer.

Building started and finished after RG took over fall of 2020. And the grand opening was 2022. All you have to do is look that up. Why make it up that it was finished before him? Such an easily provable thing.

Not a lie at all. You clearly don't know what you're talking about and have a thing against RG. What you just wrote is very inaccurate.

I am genuinely perplexed. Which part is inaccurate. My kid literally went to the building the day it opened. And I was among the first set of parents to tour the completed building in 2022.

If im wrong - what is your timeline? It finished in 2019 before Tg left (before the pandemic)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is from August message from BOT:

It is important to share with you that SSFS is facing some financial challenges, and the board is working on several strategic questions related to:
the declining boarding program;
unfulfilled pledges to our last Capital Campaign (Light the Way, meant to support the Upper School Building); and,
significant repair and maintenance needed in our Performing Arts and Athletic Centers.

I’m not aware (outside of this board) of the acrimony with the former HoS, but I suspect that someone would be well within their rights to not fulfill a pledge if they felt like the mission/direction/leadership of the school deviated from when the pledge was made. It may be (and is) sh*tty, but it happens all the time with universities, schools and other not for profits.

Institutions are typically hot to trot for pledges because they can publicize it and the fundraisers often get credit at the time of the pledge. From my experience, it’s often presented as “the pledge is good for the institution but it doesn’t really bind you to anything, so we’d appreciate it if you would agree. And if something comes up, no obligation.”

I wouldn’t make a pledge that I didn’t intend to fulfill, but I’ve seen the “bindingness” to be grossly undersold to try to get the signature.

These pledges were lapsed under Tom Gibian whose campaign it was and was supposed to be done before change of heads. They were already behind when the HOS changed. The lapses were discovered under RG, not created under RG.

Okay (again to RG cheerleader) let’s say the lapse was discovered under RG- before construction begun - which did occur UNDER RG. What stopped RG who was the leadership to say “hey so it looks like we haven’t received these pledges, we should hit the pause button till we do”? You’re saying RG was forced to continue down a bad path set by TG cause he was powerless to do the right thing for the school as its new head?

The building was finished before RG even got there. It opened to students under RG when they returned from the pandemic. Not an RG cheerleader. I just like facts.

+1. It also true that some pledges undertaken with TG were to be paid in subsequent years while Rodney was head. Not sure if this affected people not fulfilling them but it’s not unreasonable to wonder.

The lapsed pledges had a lot to do with the disorganization and mismanagement of the director of advancement who ran the campaign. Poorly.

So the onus is on the school to collect pledges that people committed to? How absurd. People should really be ashamed of themselves for pledging and knowing they had no intention of paying. People get all fancy pants, drinking wine at school events, and then realize they are in no position to be committing to that money. Shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is from August message from BOT:

It is important to share with you that SSFS is facing some financial challenges, and the board is working on several strategic questions related to:
the declining boarding program;
unfulfilled pledges to our last Capital Campaign (Light the Way, meant to support the Upper School Building); and,
significant repair and maintenance needed in our Performing Arts and Athletic Centers.

I’m not aware (outside of this board) of the acrimony with the former HoS, but I suspect that someone would be well within their rights to not fulfill a pledge if they felt like the mission/direction/leadership of the school deviated from when the pledge was made. It may be (and is) sh*tty, but it happens all the time with universities, schools and other not for profits.

Institutions are typically hot to trot for pledges because they can publicize it and the fundraisers often get credit at the time of the pledge. From my experience, it’s often presented as “the pledge is good for the institution but it doesn’t really bind you to anything, so we’d appreciate it if you would agree. And if something comes up, no obligation.”

I wouldn’t make a pledge that I didn’t intend to fulfill, but I’ve seen the “bindingness” to be grossly undersold to try to get the signature.

These pledges were lapsed under Tom Gibian whose campaign it was and was supposed to be done before change of heads. They were already behind when the HOS changed. The lapses were discovered under RG, not created under RG.

Okay (again to RG cheerleader) let’s say the lapse was discovered under RG- before construction begun - which did occur UNDER RG. What stopped RG who was the leadership to say “hey so it looks like we haven’t received these pledges, we should hit the pause button till we do”? You’re saying RG was forced to continue down a bad path set by TG cause he was powerless to do the right thing for the school as its new head?

The building was finished before RG even got there. It opened to students under RG when they returned from the pandemic. Not an RG cheerleader. I just like facts.

+1. It also true that some pledges undertaken with TG were to be paid in subsequent years while Rodney was head. Not sure if this affected people not fulfilling them but it’s not unreasonable to wonder.

Why should it matter who the HOS is? Certainly doesn’t seem like an example of “Quaker values” as keeps being talked about…to not follow through on pledges at the school relies on. What the heck is wrong with people?

I agree they should have been honored. But human nature being what it is, people may be more likely to not do that if they feel like they no longer feel connected or good about the place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is from August message from BOT:

It is important to share with you that SSFS is facing some financial challenges, and the board is working on several strategic questions related to:
the declining boarding program;
unfulfilled pledges to our last Capital Campaign (Light the Way, meant to support the Upper School Building); and,
significant repair and maintenance needed in our Performing Arts and Athletic Centers.

I’m not aware (outside of this board) of the acrimony with the former HoS, but I suspect that someone would be well within their rights to not fulfill a pledge if they felt like the mission/direction/leadership of the school deviated from when the pledge was made. It may be (and is) sh*tty, but it happens all the time with universities, schools and other not for profits.

Institutions are typically hot to trot for pledges because they can publicize it and the fundraisers often get credit at the time of the pledge. From my experience, it’s often presented as “the pledge is good for the institution but it doesn’t really bind you to anything, so we’d appreciate it if you would agree. And if something comes up, no obligation.”

I wouldn’t make a pledge that I didn’t intend to fulfill, but I’ve seen the “bindingness” to be grossly undersold to try to get the signature.

These pledges were lapsed under Tom Gibian whose campaign it was and was supposed to be done before change of heads. They were already behind when the HOS changed. The lapses were discovered under RG, not created under RG.

Okay (again to RG cheerleader) let’s say the lapse was discovered under RG- before construction begun - which did occur UNDER RG. What stopped RG who was the leadership to say “hey so it looks like we haven’t received these pledges, we should hit the pause button till we do”? You’re saying RG was forced to continue down a bad path set by TG cause he was powerless to do the right thing for the school as its new head?

The building was finished before RG even got there. It opened to students under RG when they returned from the pandemic. Not an RG cheerleader. I just like facts.

+1. It also true that some pledges undertaken with TG were to be paid in subsequent years while Rodney was head. Not sure if this affected people not fulfilling them but it’s not unreasonable to wonder.

Why should it matter who the HOS is? Certainly doesn’t seem like an example of “Quaker values” as keeps being talked about…to not follow through on pledges at the school relies on. What the heck is wrong with people?

I agree they should have been honored. But human nature being what it is, people may be more likely to not do that if they feel like they no longer feel connected or good about the place.

I strongly disagree that its human nature to not follow through on your commitments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is from August message from BOT:

It is important to share with you that SSFS is facing some financial challenges, and the board is working on several strategic questions related to:
the declining boarding program;
unfulfilled pledges to our last Capital Campaign (Light the Way, meant to support the Upper School Building); and,
significant repair and maintenance needed in our Performing Arts and Athletic Centers.

I’m not aware (outside of this board) of the acrimony with the former HoS, but I suspect that someone would be well within their rights to not fulfill a pledge if they felt like the mission/direction/leadership of the school deviated from when the pledge was made. It may be (and is) sh*tty, but it happens all the time with universities, schools and other not for profits.

Institutions are typically hot to trot for pledges because they can publicize it and the fundraisers often get credit at the time of the pledge. From my experience, it’s often presented as “the pledge is good for the institution but it doesn’t really bind you to anything, so we’d appreciate it if you would agree. And if something comes up, no obligation.”

I wouldn’t make a pledge that I didn’t intend to fulfill, but I’ve seen the “bindingness” to be grossly undersold to try to get the signature.

These pledges were lapsed under Tom Gibian whose campaign it was and was supposed to be done before change of heads. They were already behind when the HOS changed. The lapses were discovered under RG, not created under RG.

Okay (again to RG cheerleader) let’s say the lapse was discovered under RG- before construction begun - which did occur UNDER RG. What stopped RG who was the leadership to say “hey so it looks like we haven’t received these pledges, we should hit the pause button till we do”? You’re saying RG was forced to continue down a bad path set by TG cause he was powerless to do the right thing for the school as its new head?

The building was finished before RG even got there. It opened to students under RG when they returned from the pandemic. Not an RG cheerleader. I just like facts.

+1. It also true that some pledges undertaken with TG were to be paid in subsequent years while Rodney was head. Not sure if this affected people not fulfilling them but it’s not unreasonable to wonder.

Why should it matter who the HOS is? Certainly doesn’t seem like an example of “Quaker values” as keeps being talked about…to not follow through on pledges at the school relies on. What the heck is wrong with people?

I agree they should have been honored. But human nature being what it is, people may be more likely to not do that if they feel like they no longer feel connected or good about the place.

I strongly disagree that its human nature to not follow through on your commitments.

I don’t know what to tell you, lady. Some people apparently didn’t, I don’t think it’s wrong to try to understand why.

[Anonymous]

What happens to the land and the existing buildings/ campus now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic independent schools can’t be compared to parish schools. They’re not all thriving, either. Some have huge endowments left from the days when their religious orders were still there, but others are hanging on by a thread.

For every Visi or Gonzaga, there’s a Woods Academy that could easily be the next SSFS.

Or a Good Counsel or SJCHS which are thriving. No religious orders left them huge endowments.

To be clear, the endowments typically weren’t from the orders but reflect the relationship students and families had with them. They’re from wealthy people annd even small donors at a time when donating whatever money you had to your parish or school was very much expected. A lot of these big endowments grew from 1-2 rich families who felt a connection to the sisters, or situations like a single woman graduate never marrying and giving her entire net worth to her alma mater after her death. $10k here or there in 1920 or 1940 is a robust endowed fund today.

Ok nice history lessen but irrelevant to these schools. Are you even in the DMV?

It sounds like their spending was out of control and huge mismanagement. They owned the land, as it was donated to them.
Well it’s relevant in that in comparison, SSFS is relatively new to most schools in DC and its endowment and financial picture certainly reflected that. Most postwar independent schools are vulnerable in the same way. They just don’t have sufficient generations of family money or alumni money to keep up with the expectations of families.

You can’t make money off of land you can’t sell.

You can’t mortgage land.

Land is nice to have but financially useless.

You absolutely can mortgage land. In fact the SSFS land is currently heavily mortgaged

[Anonymous]

Where is the SSFS Quaker Meeting in all of this?

Also - doesnt the Board have a requirement to disclose?