SSFS HOS leaving

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MS behavior is atrocious. The rising 8th grade class was fraught with bullying both in person and online. This class had a hyper focus on race and identity targeting. These problems started when the kids entered middle school. The middle school did seem to step up their efforts to better respond to these behaviors but nothing is being done to proactively address it. This is an example of two things - lax leadership from MS division head and a school complacency around its Quaker mission. I hope both will change as a result of what has been a jarring amount of turnover.

TBH a lot of this was a result of the micromanaging of RG. Many admins had their hands tied when it came to these issues in their own divisions.

I have heard this said from many people including teachers. What I don't understand is what policies was RG pushing that tied teachers hands in maintaining order and civil behavior in the classroom.

Everything had to be run by him first. It's not so much the policy, but imagine having 4 classes of 15-20 kids 5 days/week and needed approval/justification for every disciplinary decision that's made. Literally everything beyond talking in class.

Sounds like how scheduling anything (parent meetings, class parties, affinity group gatherings) had to go through him also and grinded to a halt with nothing getting approved on campus.

I asked for a meeting about a pretty serious issue. Was given a date two months out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MS behavior is atrocious. The rising 8th grade class was fraught with bullying both in person and online. This class had a hyper focus on race and identity targeting. These problems started when the kids entered middle school. The middle school did seem to step up their efforts to better respond to these behaviors but nothing is being done to proactively address it. This is an example of two things - lax leadership from MS division head and a school complacency around its Quaker mission. I hope both will change as a result of what has been a jarring amount of turnover.

TBH a lot of this was a result of the micromanaging of RG. Many admins had their hands tied when it came to these issues in their own divisions.

I have heard this said from many people including teachers. What I don't understand is what policies was RG pushing that tied teachers hands in maintaining order and civil behavior in the classroom.

Everything had to be run by him first. It's not so much the policy, but imagine having 4 classes of 15-20 kids 5 days/week and needed approval/justification for every disciplinary decision that's made. Literally everything beyond talking in class.

Sounds like how scheduling anything (parent meetings, class parties, affinity group gatherings) had to go through him also and grinded to a halt with nothing getting approved on campus.

I asked for a meeting about a pretty serious issue. Was given a date two months out.

That’s a long time. Did he address it at all over email?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MS behavior is atrocious. The rising 8th grade class was fraught with bullying both in person and online. This class had a hyper focus on race and identity targeting. These problems started when the kids entered middle school. The middle school did seem to step up their efforts to better respond to these behaviors but nothing is being done to proactively address it. This is an example of two things - lax leadership from MS division head and a school complacency around its Quaker mission. I hope both will change as a result of what has been a jarring amount of turnover.

TBH a lot of this was a result of the micromanaging of RG. Many admins had their hands tied when it came to these issues in their own divisions.

Even if that's true, I would imagine the micromanaging was around the response (discipline) to behavior. However, what then is the excuse for not proactively addressing behavior and coaching kids in an intentional way in important life skills such as empathy, conflict resolution, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MS behavior is atrocious. The rising 8th grade class was fraught with bullying both in person and online. This class had a hyper focus on race and identity targeting. These problems started when the kids entered middle school. The middle school did seem to step up their efforts to better respond to these behaviors but nothing is being done to proactively address it. This is an example of two things - lax leadership from MS division head and a school complacency around its Quaker mission. I hope both will change as a result of what has been a jarring amount of turnover.

TBH a lot of this was a result of the micromanaging of RG. Many admins had their hands tied when it came to these issues in their own divisions.

Even if that's true, I would imagine the micromanaging was around the response (discipline) to behavior. However, what then is the excuse for not proactively addressing behavior and coaching kids in an intentional way in important life skills such as empathy, conflict resolution, etc.

The school has a student handbook that lays out discipline based on severity and frequency. Why would RG have to sign off on every discipline issue if it's laid out in the handbook? Why couldnt teachers handle behavior problems based on what was already laid out as a school policy?

[Anonymous]

This explains a lot as to why reported problems in the school were not addressed. We had meetings with the US admins about issues and they said they would look into it. In the end, nothing actually happened. There is no reason that the HoS should be involved with normal discipline issues. The only time that I could justify that the HoS should be involved is for something so bad that it required an expulsion.

[Anonymous]

Using archive.org, I compiled the US tuition from ssfs.org over time to see how it changed.

17-18 $32,300.00
18-19 $33,250.00 2.94%
19-20 $34,250.00 3.01% *
20-21 $35,250.00 2.92%
21-22 $36,500.00 3.55%
22-23 $38,300.00 4.93%
23-24 $40,980.00 7.00%
24-25 $43,200.00 5.42%
*19-20 tuition is estimated from the average of 18-19 and 20-21 as data was not available from archive.org.

Before RG headed the school, the tuition increases were consistently 3%. During RG's time, the tuition increases are random and reactionary. To me, this proves that TG knew how to manage the schools finances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Using archive.org, I compiled the US tuition from ssfs.org over time to see how it changed.

17-18 $32,300.00
18-19 $33,250.00 2.94%
19-20 $34,250.00 3.01% *
20-21 $35,250.00 2.92%
21-22 $36,500.00 3.55%
22-23 $38,300.00 4.93%
23-24 $40,980.00 7.00%
24-25 $43,200.00 5.42%
*19-20 tuition is estimated from the average of 18-19 and 20-21 as data was not available from archive.org.

Before RG headed the school, the tuition increases were consistently 3%. During RG's time, the tuition increases are random and reactionary. To me, this proves that TG knew how to manage the schools finances.

That 7% was a huge red flag to us. There was no explanation for it other than "other schools are more expensive". But what was the value being added with that increase? It wasn't even true that other schools of the same caliber were more expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Using archive.org, I compiled the US tuition from ssfs.org over time to see how it changed.

17-18 $32,300.00
18-19 $33,250.00 2.94%
19-20 $34,250.00 3.01% *
20-21 $35,250.00 2.92%
21-22 $36,500.00 3.55%
22-23 $38,300.00 4.93%
23-24 $40,980.00 7.00%
24-25 $43,200.00 5.42%
*19-20 tuition is estimated from the average of 18-19 and 20-21 as data was not available from archive.org.

Before RG headed the school, the tuition increases were consistently 3%. During RG's time, the tuition increases are random and reactionary. To me, this proves that TG knew how to manage the schools finances.

Doesn’t the board decide on tuition increase? Didn’t most independent schools in the DMV have ~4-5% increase post pandemic? The jump to 7% seems like an outlier, seems like they wanted to move to the $40k bracket like other schools in the area; there must have been an explanation as to why that increase by the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using archive.org, I compiled the US tuition from ssfs.org over time to see how it changed.

17-18 $32,300.00
18-19 $33,250.00 2.94%
19-20 $34,250.00 3.01% *
20-21 $35,250.00 2.92%
21-22 $36,500.00 3.55%
22-23 $38,300.00 4.93%
23-24 $40,980.00 7.00%
24-25 $43,200.00 5.42%
*19-20 tuition is estimated from the average of 18-19 and 20-21 as data was not available from archive.org.

Before RG headed the school, the tuition increases were consistently 3%. During RG's time, the tuition increases are random and reactionary. To me, this proves that TG knew how to manage the schools finances.

Doesn’t the board decide on tuition increase? Didn’t most independent schools in the DMV have ~4-5% increase post pandemic? The jump to 7% seems like an outlier, seems like they wanted to move to the $40k bracket like other schools in the area; there must have been an explanation as to why that increase by the board.

Well if we know one thing, the oversight of the BOT has not been present. So what the BOT agreed or didnt agree to is hard to tell. But then, the BOT is only going to make decisions based on the data they are given, if the data is flawed their concurrence will be flawed as well. The BOT doesnt run the day to day finances, staffing or other operational decisions - at best they only hey/nay's the HOS decisions that are presented to them. But if he's presenting data showing they need to increase to make ends meet, what's the board going to do? I don't believe the BOT knew how bad the finances were.

Second "other schools in the area" are not 40K, there are several in the Moco, Hoco, Baltimore area that are in the 30s still. But prices shouldnt be increased to compete with other schools tuition - it should increase because it needs to and there is a value added service being provided. You have to go towards DC to find schools in the 40K range and frankly SSFS is not those schools. So to increase tuition just because there are schools in the DMV that are pricier is a poor reason (and yes, that is the reason he used - "other schools are more expensive anyway!").

[Anonymous]

To be fair our big 3 school also had a larger than normal tuition increase the year ssfs had a 7% increase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be fair our big 3 school also had a larger than normal tuition increase the year ssfs had a 7% increase.

And hopefully they gave you a good reason for it. Increases with a reason are fine. But RG explained the 7% as a "one time calibration to get SSFS more on the level of local schools of the same quality". But there was no change in quality, and then the increase was almost 6% the year following, with teachers quitting, and lay offs ....and the only explanation was that "everyone's doing it" with no transparency regarding the pending repairs and loans. That's the core of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Inflation rates for the prior year resulted in many schools having a 6-7% increase for that year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Inflation rates for the prior year resulted in many schools having a 6-7% increase for that year.

So I guess this is the "everyone is doing it" rationale. But do those same many schools have millions in debt, a quarter of the faculty departing, ~100 students withdrawing and an hos who resigned overnight also? Surely ssfs' problems are not what "everyone" is facing so there is good reason for families not to not trust those tuition increases?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Inflation rates for the prior year resulted in many schools having a 6-7% increase for that year.

So I guess this is the "everyone is doing it" rationale. But do those same many schools have millions in debt, a quarter of the faculty departing, ~100 students withdrawing and an hos who resigned overnight also? Surely ssfs' problems are not what "everyone" is facing so there is good reason for families not to not trust those tuition increases?

Are these numbers factual? Millions in debt? 100 students not returning,?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Inflation rates for the prior year resulted in many schools having a 6-7% increase for that year.

So I guess this is the "everyone is doing it" rationale. But do those same many schools have millions in debt, a quarter of the faculty departing, ~100 students withdrawing and an hos who resigned overnight also? Surely ssfs' problems are not what "everyone" is facing so there is good reason for families not to not trust those tuition increases?

Are these numbers factual? Millions in debt? 100 students not returning,?

Families can’t confirm the financial information unless that is disclosed by the school. But the mounting repairs that have been deferred and the layoffs obviously prove something isn’t right.

But the 30+ faculty departure is easy to confirm from the announcements in the last year, as is a quick count of the student directory to know the enrollment numbers compared to last year have clearly dropped by around 80-100 kids.