SSFS Closing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just cannot understand why they didn’t do a Hail Mary solicitation for donations before taking this step so abruptly.

I agree with you. Maybe they did behind the scenes, they would know which alumni have the potential to make donations. Instead of announcing closure, they could have made a more public “SOS” call for donations first. They had a donor give 500,000 to renovate the lower school late last year maybe more would have given over the next few years.

It also wouldn’t have been such a dramatic shock to the community if they then later announced they were closing.

I think that a hail mary would have spooked a lot of parents, and whatever they took in donations would be outweighed by loss of students. If a school was publicly talking about not meeting their morgate, or potentially closing, then there's no way I would choose it for a new enrollment, for example, and depending on age, I'd probably move my kids to avoid something like this.

They may have made private appeals to families and alumni that have the most resources.

I wonder about parents of rising seniors, maybe juniors, putting together something small. Maybe a homeschool coop where kids take class at MC, or HCC, and they organize activities for other needs together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm thinking about Christ Episcopal School in Rockville. They were in a similar position a few years ago, with an eminent closure and last-minute fundraising push. They had buildings to sell, so perhaps it's not an apples to apples comparison. But they're still open.

I was thinking about CES too. If they were able to make it work with a much smaller community, the least SSFS could have done was to make a last ditch call for help/donations. Just seems like the board did not try enough.

[Anonymous]

If people made formal, documented pledges and the school acted in reliance (like building a facility), those pledges were likely enforceable, at least in theory. The fact that they were not collected or enforced could be a strategic or resource-based decision by the school—not necessarily a lack of legal standing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parent here of 7 years. It is a loss to students and faculty the most. But it is also a loss to the greater DC community. It provided an education not offered at other private (or public) schools and an anchor philosophically and spiritually to many in the county as a whole. I think some of those in charge wanted the school to be more "competitive" (and their egos reflected that) but I also think new parents wanted it shiny as well. It is a loss for everyone.

The quest for shiny is going to take a lot of schools down. My kids are at a school that isn’t dissimilar to SSFS and there is a ton of discord between longtime parents who value the core education and philosophy of the school vs. younger parents who are really, really anxious and like the philosophy of the school but want it as window dressing. They want to be able to act chill and thoughtful but all of their feedback indicates that they want their kids at a school that is outcome-focused, intense, competitive and has all the shiny new things.

I think this tension is common and will be the undoing of many more schools.

[Anonymous]

Please look at the facts:
- SSFS breaks ground on new Upper School building November 12, 2018
https://www.ssfs.org/cf_enotify/view.cfm?n=1646
- Covid begins March 2020
- RG began as HOS July 1, 2020 (during covid)
- Upper School building completed and began usage March 2021

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please look at the facts:
- SSFS breaks ground on new Upper School building November 12, 2018
https://www.ssfs.org/cf_enotify/view.cfm?n=1646
- Covid begins March 2020
- RG began as HOS July 1, 2020 (during covid)
- Upper School building completed and began usage March 2021

All the bulk of construction was summer 2020 thru spring 2021
The groundbreaking was barely a shovel. Cause I was walking around in fall 2019 and right before Covid and the whole plot was still covered in grass.

At the end of the day it was never stopped or paused by anyone who was in admin when clearly they didn’t have the funds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Every private school I can think of has built new buildings in the last 10 years. None have had to shut their doors due to pledge issues. This is financial mismanagement on behalf of the board. They made the decision to move forward based on the money in hand and the pledged amounts. They took the risk.

All but those with biggest endowments, richest families have been dancing at the edge of financial insolvency.

Really? This doesn't ring true to me but first Feynman and now SSFS. It's extremely concerning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please look at the facts:
- SSFS breaks ground on new Upper School building November 12, 2018
https://www.ssfs.org/cf_enotify/view.cfm?n=1646
- Covid begins March 2020
- RG began as HOS July 1, 2020 (during covid)
- Upper School building completed and began usage March 2021

All the bulk of construction was summer 2020 thru spring 2021
The groundbreaking was barely a shovel. Cause I was walking around in fall 2019 and right before Covid and the whole plot was still covered in grass.

At the end of the day it was never stopped or paused by anyone who was in admin when clearly they didn’t have the funds

If the building was opened March 2021, then in summer 2020 they had already invested a lot of borrowed money. Backing out at that point didn't make sense.

RG may have caused a lot of problems, but you can't blame him for the new building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm thinking about Christ Episcopal School in Rockville. They were in a similar position a few years ago, with an eminent closure and last-minute fundraising push. They had buildings to sell, so perhaps it's not an apples to apples comparison. But they're still open.

Agreed. They put their heads down and are thriving now.
Couldn't SSFS have sold a portion of land?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Every private school I can think of has built new buildings in the last 10 years. None have had to shut their doors due to pledge issues. This is financial mismanagement on behalf of the board. They made the decision to move forward based on the money in hand and the pledged amounts. They took the risk.

All but those with biggest endowments, richest families have been dancing at the edge of financial insolvency.

Really? This doesn't ring true to me but first Feynman and now SSFS. It's extremely concerning.

NP, it’s true. It is the talk among independent school circles and at conferences. Consultants are making a lot of money now off of schools trying to find a way through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just cannot understand why they didn’t do a Hail Mary solicitation for donations before taking this step so abruptly.

14-16M is simply not something you can crowdsource.

That was the projection over the next several years, assuming continuing current operation expenses. I think keeping the doors open another year allowing a reasonable transition may have been possible.

I think the carrying costs of their current property made it impossible, and trying to shift gears and and retrench really isn't workable. Very few kids would stay, given that closure would be imminent. Ditto staff. Even making it through the year would be tricky, and if there's a risk of closing mid-year, even fewer kids would risk attending.

IMHO institutions, like people, should be a lot more seriously debt-averse, because it destroys their flexibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not surprised they are closing. I was there for a tour in January on one of the coldest days of the winter and there was no heat in the gym. I know this because the children were wearing their winter coats inside during PE (which seemed odd), so I asked why, and was told there was an HVAC issue and they weren't sure when they would be able to fix it. There was also no heat in a dormitory (not sure if there's more than one). That was a huge red flag to me.

Wow, that is shocking!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm thinking about Christ Episcopal School in Rockville. They were in a similar position a few years ago, with an eminent closure and last-minute fundraising push. They had buildings to sell, so perhaps it's not an apples to apples comparison. But they're still open.

I was thinking about CES too. If they were able to make it work with a much smaller community, the least SSFS could have done was to make a last ditch call for help/donations. Just seems like the board did not try enough.

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they asked people who had donated in the 100k + range but they didn’t ask people who had donated in the 10k + range and that seems strange-why not try?

Call me jaded, but would assume that someone has a connection who would make more money on a real estate deal.

Similar thing happened to Sweet Briar college in Virginia. There it turned out there will some legal provisions that prohibited the sale of the college, so alums were able able to get rid of that President and Board and raise enough money to keep the school open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just cannot understand why they didn’t do a Hail Mary solicitation for donations before taking this step so abruptly.

14-16M is simply not something you can crowdsource.

That was the projection over the next several years, assuming continuing current operation expenses. I think keeping the doors open another year allowing a reasonable transition may have been possible.

I think the carrying costs of their current property made it impossible, and trying to shift gears and and retrench really isn't workable. Very few kids would stay, given that closure would be imminent. Ditto staff. Even making it through the year would be tricky, and if there's a risk of closing mid-year, even fewer kids would risk attending.

IMHO institutions, like people, should be a lot more seriously debt-averse, because it destroys their flexibility.

+1