Landon and Bullis -- schools that are evolving?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thank you. You made my point.

[Anonymous]

Somehow Landon and Bullis seem to have avoided the pedophile problems that Sidwell, Prep and the Cathedral schools have seen in recent years. Having my child in a pedophillia free environment is important to me.

[Anonymous]

Landon and Bullis have not yet “evolved” to the point where they *understand* that parent need not know that a 3rd grade teacher is holding boys on his lap and taking their children behind closed doors or that there is nothing wrong with a 7th grade teacher having over nights with 14 year old boys. Hack they probably don’t even an 8th grade sex ed teacher who does “house calls” to evaluate young children (and service the mom on the side). Yes. Un-evolved – totally un-evolved.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

The Landon and Bullis communities have to be two of the most insecure and pretentious group of parents I have ever come across.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Landon and Bullis have not yet “evolved” to the point where they *understand* that parent need not know that a 3rd grade teacher is holding boys on his lap and taking their children behind closed doors or that there is nothing wrong with a 7th grade teacher having over nights with 14 year old boys. Heck they probably don’t even an 8th grade sex ed teacher who does “house calls” to evaluate young children (and service the mom on the side). Yes. Un-evolved – totally un-evolved.

If they were just a little more secure, the Landon and Bullis would learn to embrace the notion of pedophiles on campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We will have to agree to disagree. Apparently, we and our kids know different teachers. Or, maybe it's just that I think it's possible to show support for sports without advocating the views that you set forth. You know, in recent years I believe that about 25% of members of the graduating class earned at least 6 varsity letters. To me, that's a pretty strong statement that Sidwell values participation in athletics.

And, wait, didn't Tom advocate that everyone play on a team, that teaching candidates who could also coach be given preference in hiring, and that hasn't there been more preferential treatment given to prospective athletes in admissions since he became HOS? Are you sure you aren't Tom? In drag, I mean.

[Anonymous]

The Sidwell community is hostile towards athletics because the Sidwell student population, as whole, sucks at sports.

[Anonymous]

``The Sidwell community is hostile towards athletics because the Sidwell student population, as whole, sucks at sports.''

Sidwell isn't hostile to sports. You'll understand that one day when your boss invites you in to his office to kindly give you his pair of 50-yard-line Redskin tickets as a reward for doing a good job that week. You'll notice the maroon alumni coffee cup on the desk and sadly appreciate the important difference between being a laxbro in high school and being an actual success in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Somehow Landon and Bullis seem to have avoided the pedophile problems that Sidwell, Prep and the Cathedral schools have seen in recent years. Having my child in a pedophillia free environment is important to me.

Honestly, don't even say something like this -- it is such a sad thing when it occurs, and as the articles about Horace Mann in the NYTimes and New Yorker demonstrate, even the most venerated institutions often have a checkered history on this. Background checks, rigorous hiring practices (e.g. calling many references), and training about red flags are all good things, but no such method is fail-safe. Pray that Landon and Bullis never have nor ever will have to deal with such a problem, but don't taunt or gloat or joke about this subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We will have to agree to disagree. Apparently, we and our kids know different teachers. Or, maybe it's just that I think it's possible to show support for sports without advocating the views that you set forth. You know, in recent years I believe that about 25% of members of the graduating class earned at least 6 varsity letters. To me, that's a pretty strong statement that Sidwell values participation in athletics.

And, wait, didn't Tom advocate that everyone play on a team, that teaching candidates who could also coach be given preference in hiring, and that hasn't there been more preferential treatment given to prospective athletes in admissions since he became HOS? Are you sure you aren't Tom? In drag, I mean.

I think we may substantively agree on a number of things -- I've always liked Sidwell's approach to athletics, which seems to be geared toward participation but can accommodate the occasional Division I talent without changing what the school is -- but I don't know why you keep up with the "oh this is Tom posting" joke. It's mean-spirited towards your Head of School and undermines the force of the fairly reasoned arguments you otherwise seem to be advancing. (And if you are the person who suggested that people who critique Sidwell athletics will all be fetching coffee for their rich Sidwell bosses some day, I would say it's a cliched argument that doesn't advance your ultimate substantive point at all.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:``The Sidwell community is hostile towards athletics because the Sidwell student population, as whole, sucks at sports.''

Sidwell isn't hostile to sports. You'll understand that one day when your boss invites you in to his office to kindly give you his pair of 50-yard-line Redskin tickets as a reward for doing a good job that week. You'll notice the maroon alumni coffee cup on the desk and sadly appreciate the important difference between being a laxbro in high school and being an actual success in life.

I believe, relatively speaking, there are few "bosses" from Sidwell around. It's great at many things, but I don't think it's that kind of school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:``The Sidwell community is hostile towards athletics because the Sidwell student population, as whole, sucks at sports.''

Sidwell isn't hostile to sports. You'll understand that one day when your boss invites you in to his office to kindly give you his pair of 50-yard-line Redskin tickets as a reward for doing a good job that week. You'll notice the maroon alumni coffee cup on the desk and sadly appreciate the important difference between being a laxbro in high school and being an actual success in life.

A new high (low) in pretentious douchebaggery, this time from a Sidwell parent. Sigh. This should be corrected, though, to read that the mug belongs to the parent of a Sidwell kid, because the power and Redskins season tickets at Sidwell generally belong to the parents not to the graduates even decades out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:``The Sidwell community is hostile towards athletics because the Sidwell student population, as whole, sucks at sports.''

Sidwell isn't hostile to sports. You'll understand that one day when your boss invites you in to his office to kindly give you his pair of 50-yard-line Redskin tickets as a reward for doing a good job that week. You'll notice the maroon alumni coffee cup on the desk and sadly appreciate the important difference between being a laxbro in high school and being an actual success in life.

A new high (low) in pretentious douchebaggery, this time from a Sidwell parent. Sigh. This should be corrected, though, to read that the mug belongs to the parent of a Sidwell kid, because the power and Redskins season tickets at Sidwell generally belong to the parents not to the graduates even decades out.

1. Everyone stop talking about mugs.
2. Once you've taken step 1, how about both sides cease making arguments about which schools will graduate more materially successful graduates as if it is relevant to a debate over the proper emphasis on athletics in independent schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We will have to agree to disagree. Apparently, we and our kids know different teachers. Or, maybe it's just that I think it's possible to show support for sports without advocating the views that you set forth. You know, in recent years I believe that about 25% of members of the graduating class earned at least 6 varsity letters. To me, that's a pretty strong statement that Sidwell values participation in athletics.

And, wait, didn't Tom advocate that everyone play on a team, that teaching candidates who could also coach be given preference in hiring, and that hasn't there been more preferential treatment given to prospective athletes in admissions since he became HOS? Are you sure you aren't Tom? In drag, I mean.

I think we may substantively agree on a number of things -- I've always liked Sidwell's approach to athletics, which seems to be geared toward participation but can accommodate the occasional Division I talent without changing what the school is -- but I don't know why you keep up with the "oh this is Tom posting" joke. It's mean-spirited towards your Head of School and undermines the force of the fairly reasoned arguments you otherwise seem to be advancing. (And if you are the person who suggested that people who critique Sidwell athletics will all be fetching coffee for their rich Sidwell bosses some day, I would say it's a cliched argument that doesn't advance your ultimate substantive point at all.)

Of course I'm not that person. And my comments about Tom are not mean-spirited; you simply disagree with them.