SSFS Will Stay Open

[Anonymous]

But it’s not REALLY going to be a different board. They weren’t specific on the numbers there either. Announce whose terms are up, who’s stepping down. No transparency there, just that it would be a smaller board, less Quakers, and some turnover. But how much and who was not identified at all.

Again, hard to move the needle when there’s no accountability or transparency

[Anonymous]

The entire meeting was rather vague I agree. I don’t think I went in expecting more, so I wasn’t surprised either.

But they have some money, so imminent danger is averted. So it’s really up to individual families now to decide on the risk they’re comfortable with. Really the board can’t guarantee anything even if they wanted to. How will enrollment pan out? They can’t know. Will an endowment actually happen? They can’t know. Will the sugar daddy go away before they have stabilized income? Again they can’t really know. All these things are too far in the future. And we know this board hasnt been able to predict anything anyway.

But this fall seems moderately safe. Next spring? Probably ok too. The following fall? That no one can really say. If 232 drops to 132- well then who knows right?

[Anonymous]

The 232 is just the number today. In our grade we still have many undecided. Deep breaths; we shall see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 232 is just the number today. In our grade we still have many undecided. Deep breaths; we shall see.

Well 232 isn’t going to turn into 600 by Thursday. Whatever the final number it’s still going to be really low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But it’s not REALLY going to be a different board. They weren’t specific on the numbers there either. Announce whose terms are up, who’s stepping down. No transparency there, just that it would be a smaller board, less Quakers, and some turnover. But how much and who was not identified at all.

Again, hard to move the needle when there’s no accountability or transparency

Of course they can't name names and say "this person resigned," that's a public shaming of individuals who still deserve their privacy. But based on the new bylaws and what we know, it sounds like about 7 or 8 of the 15 total will be different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We all know it’s goi g to be a bit different the next couple years, but with more money and a different board there is no reason the school can’t thrive again.

If they can stop blaming doge, the birth rate, natural disasters, and take a good look in the mirror to fix the real reasons people aren’t paying to come here, they can thrive again after probably 2-3 difficult years.

They're probably doing that behind the scenes so as not to air out people's dirty laundry for all to see.

Not sure why it’s “dirty laundry” to acknowledge they’ve listening to why people are leaving and taking it to heart to once again become the school people were lining up for. Was it tuition? Was it academics? Was it a change in culture? Some things can be talked about which would make it seem like they have their finger on the pulse. Saying it’s dodge as to why people are leaving and checking out OTHER PRIVATE schools or the birth rate why already born kids are leaving just makes it seem like they’re in denial. At least that’s how it reads to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But it’s not REALLY going to be a different board. They weren’t specific on the numbers there either. Announce whose terms are up, who’s stepping down. No transparency there, just that it would be a smaller board, less Quakers, and some turnover. But how much and who was not identified at all.

Again, hard to move the needle when there’s no accountability or transparency

Of course they can't name names and say "this person resigned," that's a public shaming of individuals who still deserve their privacy. But based on the new bylaws and what we know, it sounds like about 7 or 8 of the 15 total will be different.

It’s not clear to me why a smaller board means a better board. Can someone explain? Not saying I think it isn’t I just don’t know how the size makes it good or bad.

[Anonymous]

And about the one Board member people are talking s**t about on here and calling "odd" or "disingenuous"... the Coalition leadership says that person is the reason the school was saved in the first place. They believed in making it work 100% when other Board members did not and tried to "ruin the deal." And they were the only person admit fault last night. I trust them to learn from their mistakes going forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they let in some regular people ( not rich) and charged 10k a year with a guarantee that they could have that amount guaranteed for X number of years they could get their numbers up. I would assume that’s better than 0k
I’d be ok with that to have normal class sizes and offerings.

Are you for real? First of all, there are plenty of "not rich" families at SSFS. Second, you're suggesting that a school that had a near financial collapse charge just 10K a year and that a family sign on to X number of years? That wouldn't fly at ANY private school and definitely not one that gets 80% of its operating budget from tuition. A larger endowment, fundraising, and more ways besides summer camp to earn revenue from the campus are what's needed along with people who actually know how to financially manage such an institution.

There are not plenty of not rich families.
If tuition is $43k plus and you give $10k aid it’s still a wealthy family that can afford tuition. Even if you give 50% aid that 20k plus is unaffordable to most people.
Your definition of not rich might be different than mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Not sure why it’s “dirty laundry” to acknowledge they’ve listening to why people are leaving and taking it to heart to once again become the school people were lining up for. Was it tuition? Was it academics? Was it a change in culture? Some things can be talked about which would make it seem like they have their finger on the pulse. Saying it’s dodge as to why people are leaving and checking out OTHER PRIVATE schools or the birth rate why already born kids are leaving just makes it seem like they’re in denial. At least that’s how it reads to me.

DOGE was only mentioned once, as a factor that changed between their projections in the winter and actual numbers in April. For other factors they would need to do exit interviews with those hundreds of families who left, and we don't know if they did, or if that info will be made public. Hopefully their new recruitment and marketing staff do going forward.

[Anonymous]

You can use the Web Archive to compare the BOT members a few months ago to now and see exactly who resigned. I won't post links in case that violates DCUM's rule about not naming names, but I'll just say it is possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not sure why it’s “dirty laundry” to acknowledge they’ve listening to why people are leaving and taking it to heart to once again become the school people were lining up for. Was it tuition? Was it academics? Was it a change in culture? Some things can be talked about which would make it seem like they have their finger on the pulse. Saying it’s dodge as to why people are leaving and checking out OTHER PRIVATE schools or the birth rate why already born kids are leaving just makes it seem like they’re in denial. At least that’s how it reads to me.

DOGE was only mentioned once, as a factor that changed between their projections in the winter and actual numbers in April. For other factors they would need to do exit interviews with those hundreds of families who left, and we don't know if they did, or if that info will be made public. Hopefully their new recruitment and marketing staff do going forward.

Yes doge was mentioned once - just last night. However in the past month everyone from the school I have spoken to aware mentions doge like uts the top reason why they lost ~80 ppl last year and ~150 this year.

By now they should have seen the exit interviews from last year. And since most of the ~150 that left this year were NOT withdrawals after Feb re enrollment , at least some of those exit reasons must be known. So in the 100+ exit reasons isn’t there at least ONE non external out of their control reason they can cite even just once in the same breath as doge? That’s why doge even “just once” irritates me.

[Anonymous]

The DOGE excuse strikes me as odd. You’re not hearing that from any of the other DMV schools. It seems like the debacle with the last HOS and the revolving door of other administrators left the school without a rudder. And the admissions strategy and effort?

[Anonymous]

No way they survive three years. Those grade levels of 10 kids are gonna self-implode sooner or later. Just too small for the social pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The DOGE excuse strikes me as odd. You’re not hearing that from any of the other DMV schools. It seems like the debacle with the last HOS and the revolving door of other administrators left the school without a rudder. And the admissions strategy and effort?

Heaven forbid that anyone mentions all the admin turnover of the last few years (or more importantly the impact on the quality this turnover had) as a reason people felt uneasy and left. It’s only because doge! That’s all we know. And doge has a weird effect on ppl, makes it hard to afford ssfs but possible to afford other (and often more expensive) private schools! But no, nothing wrong with our school, our school is perfect as is!