SSFS HOS leaving

[Anonymous]

Anyone else wishing the listening sessions had more information on the state of the school (financially, staffing and enrollment)? Would quell some of the speculation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else wishing the listening sessions had more information on the state of the school (financially, staffing and enrollment)? Would quell some of the speculation.

I haven’t been to one yet. I assume they were just listening, and not Q&A?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else wishing the listening sessions had more information on the state of the school (financially, staffing and enrollment)? Would quell some of the speculation.

That’s not what listening sessions are. The purpose of these sessions was for parents to communicate directly with the BOT and the administration. If they have come to this in good faith, which I believe they have, they will follow up with answers.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone who has been to a listening session want to share the mood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone who has been to a listening session want to share the mood?

Not a listening session, but the mood at the community event was upbeat and positive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone who has been to a listening session want to share the mood?

Not a listening session, but the mood at the community event was upbeat and positive.

Was there any admin/faculty at the welcome event? Not likely anyone will be bringing up concerns there.

At the listening session people provided feedback and notes were taken. David and Christine also indicated more information would follow. Hard to gauge mood on a zoom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone who has been to a listening session want to share the mood?

Not a listening session, but the mood at the community event was upbeat and positive.

Was there any admin/faculty at the welcome event? Not likely anyone will be bringing up concerns there.

At the listening session people provided feedback and notes were taken. David and Christine also indicated more information would follow. Hard to gauge mood on a zoom.

Yes, there are admin and faculty there. Not sure about people bringing up concerns.

[Anonymous]

I can tell you that from the staff/faculty I have spoken with, morale is in the gutter. It can’t get any worse. It’s going to be a tough year.

[Anonymous]

Families can be optimistic but there is no denying that next year at least will be rough and teachers are at very low morale right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Families can be optimistic but there is no denying that next year at least will be rough and teachers are at very low morale right now.

Many teachers are quite hopeful and looking forward to positive change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Families can be optimistic but there is no denying that next year at least will be rough and teachers are at very low morale right now.

Many teachers are quite hopeful and looking forward to positive change.

Positive change is guaranteed. Nothing could be worse than what they’ve suffered with RG.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:still hoping some teachers and others return

They need to bring back the head of the LS.
She was great and the little kids need the stability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:still hoping some teachers and others return

They need to bring back the head of the LS.
She was great and the little kids need the stability.

While CB was beloved there were a lot of problems in the LS with her. Perhaps that was RGs failure to provide her with the necessary supports. But if problems are to be fixed, understanding why they were caused needs ti be first understood. People can be beloved and great in one role but not necessarily suited for another. The school needs to focus on finding the best people for the job not just hire/bring back people for being popular in one capacity. If CB without RGs interference is the right person for the job then it makes sense. Otherwise problems will just come back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I'm saying that in those 2 cases the reasons given were legit. Not every departure was because of his leadership. Again, he was not a good fit and it is best for him and the school to part ways. Would I have liked to have happened earlier? Absolutely, but not every problem at SSFS is on him.

That was only partially true. They were frustrated they couldn’t really lead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!").

Which non-catholic independent schools (not K-8), in the DMV are below 40k? Who would you say are SSFS peers?

It's not hard to find a few. US tuition 2024-25:
SSFS: $43,200

McDonogh: $41,050
Bryn Mawr: $40,430
Park School: $38,900
Baltimore Friends: $38,000
Gilman: $37,690
Barrie: $37,135
Glenelg Country: $ 35,830
Key School: $35,220

To say none of those can offer an alternative to SSFS is a stretch. You have to move towards DC (Sidwell, Holton Arms) when you start getting the schools that cost more. But you can't say SSFS competes with those schools in what they're offering.

What do you mean by "what they are offering"?

I think what the poster meant is that Sidwell and SSFS can’t be compared. Sidwell has better resources and more options in the US program. And it’s not just Sidwell. Baltimore friends has a better academic program too. It’s all in what you’re looking for in a school.

And, the importance of fully qualified teachers with expertise in the content area being taught. Not just a warm body a few chapters ahead in the curriculum.