Landon and Bullis -- schools that are evolving?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't be shocked if Landon went co - ed with in the next 10 years. This is coming from an alum.

I would be shocked if Landon went coed. The faculty, parents and many alums seem especially dedicated to single sex education. Current Parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doubtful mainly because the demand for single gender education is increasing, not decreasing and interest in schools founded by religious groups is waning. The religious schools will continue to become more secular, but there is only one secular boys school at the moment.

If there is any likely development it's that the non catholic religious schools will become secular and formally separate from the churches they are associated with.

I don't know about St. Andrews (Episcopal) -- maybe that's what you are thinking of -- but there's zero chance of St. Albans/NCS severing ties with the Episcopal Church in this generation (at a minimum).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't be shocked if Landon went co - ed with in the next 10 years. This is coming from an alum.

Agree with the poster who was dubious about this. The low point for all-boys' schools was probably in the late 1980s to mid-1990s -- now people are really thinking in terms of the differences in educating boys vs. girls, and the interest in single sex schools is pretty high. Just look at this board and all the posts about looking for a school that "gets active boys," for example. With Holton as a very strong nearby option for Landon families with daughters, I don't really see the demand within the community for a co-ed school. When some formerly all-boys' schools such as Deerfield went co-ed, fathers who wanted their daughters to share the Deerfield legacy were a big part of the decision to go co-ed.

As an intermediate step, you might see a renewed emphasis on "coordinate" education with Holton. For an example, they could try to have a meaningful cross-registraton process (difficult logistically, though -- maybe you could have the first period of the day be coordinate, have shuttle buses, and then a longer passing time until the next period, something like that). Gilman in Baltimore is a good example of a school that has done well with its coordinate program with the two nearby all-girls' schools, and St. Albans and NCS are making more of a push in the area of coordinate education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't be shocked if Landon went co - ed with in the next 10 years. This is coming from an alum.

Agree with the poster who was dubious about this. The low point for all-boys' schools was probably in the late 1980s to mid-1990s -- now people are really thinking in terms of the differences in educating boys vs. girls, and the interest in single sex schools is pretty high. Just look at this board and all the posts about looking for a school that "gets active boys," for example. With Holton as a very strong nearby option for Landon families with daughters, I don't really see the demand within the community for a co-ed school. When some formerly all-boys' schools such as Deerfield went co-ed, fathers who wanted their daughters to share the Deerfield legacy were a big part of the decision to go co-ed.

As an intermediate step, you might see a renewed emphasis on "coordinate" education with Holton. For an example, they could try to have a meaningful cross-registraton process (difficult logistically, though -- maybe you could have the first period of the day be coordinate, have shuttle buses, and then a longer passing time until the next period, something like that). Gilman in Baltimore is a good example of a school that has done well with its coordinate program with the two nearby all-girls' schools, and St. Albans and NCS are making more of a push in the area of coordinate education.

I do agree with this as a Landon parent. The difficulty has been that Landon runs on a 8 day schedule which has made coordination between Holton difficult. Currently the consortium classes run in the morning before school starts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doubtful mainly because the demand for single gender education is increasing, not decreasing and interest in schools founded by religious groups is waning. The religious schools will continue to become more secular, but there is only one secular boys school at the moment.

If there is any likely development it's that the non catholic religious schools will become secular and formally separate from the churches they are associated with.

I don't know about St. Andrews (Episcopal) -- maybe that's what you are thinking of -- but there's zero chance of St. Albans/NCS severing ties with the Episcopal Church in this generation (at a minimum).

You mean "what's left of the Episcopal Church." What will THAT church look like in a generation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doubtful mainly because the demand for single gender education is increasing, not decreasing and interest in schools founded by religious groups is waning. The religious schools will continue to become more secular, but there is only one secular boys school at the moment.

If there is any likely development it's that the non catholic religious schools will become secular and formally separate from the churches they are associated with.

I don't know about St. Andrews (Episcopal) -- maybe that's what you are thinking of -- but there's zero chance of St. Albans/NCS severing ties with the Episcopal Church in this generation (at a minimum).

You mean "what's left of the Episcopal Church." What will THAT church look like in a generation?

I don't know, but that big old Cathedral isn't going anywhere, and neither is religion at St. Albans or NCS.

[Anonymous]

Interesting that Farquar left Bullis for supposedly hurting its athletic program with a heavy focus on academics and is now being accused of doing the opposite at Sidwell: compromising academics in order to beef up its sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that Farquar left Bullis for supposedly hurting its athletic program with a heavy focus on academics and is now being accused of doing the opposite at Sidwell: compromising academics in order to beef up its sports.

Private school parents bitch about everything, and the Sidwell crowd is the worst -- whiny, intrusive, and entitled. Half of them say athletics are too emphasized, the other half want more emphasis. The Sidwell faculty as a group hates athletics, so no sea change will occur, have no fear. These DC school heads earn every last penny.

And Farquhar left Bullis because he was offered the Sidwell job -- the Board held him to another full year after he was offered the Sidwell job.

[Anonymous]

Sidwell gave up on athletics a generation ago. Most families that care about athletics will have nothing to do with the school now. They were easily replaced with families that care about more traditional Washington pursuits such as social climbing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that Farquar left Bullis for supposedly hurting its athletic program with a heavy focus on academics and is now being accused of doing the opposite at Sidwell: compromising academics in order to beef up its sports.

Private school parents bitch about everything, and the Sidwell crowd is the worst -- whiny, intrusive, and entitled. Half of them say athletics are too emphasized, the other half want more emphasis. The Sidwell faculty as a group hates athletics, so no sea change will occur, have no fear. These DC school heads earn every last penny.

And Farquhar left Bullis because he was offered the Sidwell job -- the Board held him to another full year after he was offered the Sidwell job.

Wrong. I've seen many, many faculty members at games, meets and matches cheering on the kids. There are also several teachers who coach and many others who played high school and college sports themselves.

And, Tom, if that's you posting, you need to stop whining and act like a leader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that Farquar left Bullis for supposedly hurting its athletic program with a heavy focus on academics and is now being accused of doing the opposite at Sidwell: compromising academics in order to beef up its sports.

Private school parents bitch about everything, and the Sidwell crowd is the worst -- whiny, intrusive, and entitled. Half of them say athletics are too emphasized, the other half want more emphasis. The Sidwell faculty as a group hates athletics, so no sea change will occur, have no fear. These DC school heads earn every last penny.

And Farquhar left Bullis because he was offered the Sidwell job -- the Board held him to another full year after he was offered the Sidwell job.

Wrong. I've seen many, many faculty members at games, meets and matches cheering on the kids. There are also several teachers who coach and many others who played high school and college sports themselves.

And, Tom, if that's you posting, you need to stop whining and act like a leader.

The Sidwell faculty as a group is fairly negative on athletics, particularly for a school where they are co-curricular. (And yes, I've seen entire seasons in particular sports when no faculty member came to a game.) I know several faculty members socially and they are very quick to push back at the idea that athletics at Sidwell would receive any more emphasis, whether through a requirement that students be required to choose athletics (rather than PE) early in high school, to statements about excessive time commitment for athletics, to strong opposition to recruiting of athletes or giving good athletes any preference in admissions. (This last might well be a good thing -- perhaps the faculty at Maret and Bullis should take note, although as at most Friends Schools, the principle of decision-making by consensus gives the Sidwell faculty a great deal of power.)

And your little crack at Tom F. is just silly and nasty. Just like every other damn person on DCUM, I'm a middle-aged white woman, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sidwell gave up on athletics a generation ago. Most families that care about athletics will have nothing to do with the school now. They were easily replaced with families that care about more traditional Washington pursuits such as social climbing.

How typical of this forum that a thread explicitly meant to focus on Landon and Bullis has become fixated on Sidwell Friends. Yawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bullis is in no mans land. Always has been... may always be...

Its root were as a Naval Prep school
Then an all boys semi reform school
Then co-ed for average students
Then hired current Head of Sidwell - tried to compete academically with the big boys - failed
Now trying to compete with big boys athletically - we shall see

On academics, they will throw a lot of terms out to you. STEM, nice campus, balance blah blah blah. Facts are facts.
1. almost no HYPMS. Maybe 1 per year at most.
2. almost no National Merit Scholars
3. almost no distinguished alums - very little relative to a similar size of Landon, Holton, STA, GP, Sidwell etc

Serious students do not choose to go here. Serious students are here because mommy and daddy dont want to drive them far away from their 20814 McMansion.

This is a public school you pay for.

My, my, why the animus?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Going back to the original question, with respect to Landon: Landon hired a woman as the Middle School Head this year, which suggests (to me, at least) that they are really trying to get serious about improving the experience (and probably the image too) of Landon when it comes to the culture (e.g., respect for girls and women).

Very good point. Landon has a long, long way to go in terms of moving into the 20th century (forget the 21st century) with respect to attitudes toward girls and women. This was indeed a step in the right direction. If the message that females are human can be communicated explicitly by a boy's family then Landon would be fine. Otherwise it makes for boys who are maladjusted to the world around them when they reach college. As a woman I find some Landon alums of a certain age ridiculous with respect to their interactions with women (the simultaneous condescension and putting a woman on a pedestal is something I would expect of someone of an earlier generation).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back to the original question, with respect to Landon: Landon hired a woman as the Middle School Head this year, which suggests (to me, at least) that they are really trying to get serious about improving the experience (and probably the image too) of Landon when it comes to the culture (e.g., respect for girls and women).

Very good point. Landon has a long, long way to go in terms of moving into the 20th century (forget the 21st century) with respect to attitudes toward girls and women. This was indeed a step in the right direction. If the message that females are human can be communicated explicitly by a boy's family then Landon would be fine. Otherwise it makes for boys who are maladjusted to the world around them when they reach college. As a woman I find some Landon alums of a certain age ridiculous with respect to their interactions with women (the simultaneous condescension and putting a woman on a pedestal is something I would expect of someone of an earlier generation).

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned
I suppose the moms who continue to send generation after generation of boys to Landon just aren't as enlightened as you, but the Landon moms I know seem a whole lot happier than you seem to be.

I for one pray that Landon never follows the path of emasculation that other elite private schools in this area have been goaded into.