SSFS HOS leaving

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Independent school board member here. Just as it’s a process to remove (and hire) a head, it’s a big effort to hone boards to be effective, strategic, and fiscal stewards — and support their one employee, the head of school. Board members are volunteers who turnover, so it’s dependent on the head to grow/tend to the partnership. Sadly, schools have seen mis-hires, brief tenures, and even lack of interest in head work itself these days. Some rookie heads also assume this job w/o finance, advancement, governance, operation skillset so are learning on the fly. Yet, this is the core of the job! No easy solution. The school reconciling all of this as a lack of fit and now working hard to get it right will be a start.

This is quite true. The volunteer culture has changed in the last 5 years and it’s rough. Finding people capable and actually doing the work of a BOT is really challenging these days- plenty want to be on the Board but don’t have the interest or ability to govern. Gutting it out and showing up for hours each week and month is more than many care to do. I’m on a school BOT and we have 22 on the board and 5-6 doing actual work. If those 5-6 aren’t in alignment in a way that supports the school’s future, things can get bogged down for year.

The head pool is shallow and there are experienced, quality heads that stick around at a few schools forever and tons of rookies. In our last search, we couldn’t get a single applicant with previous HOS experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you're so glad you took that step, why are you on this board still interested? You withdrew and I hope that works well for you. Those with no stake who are here to be gleeful or simply pile on are irksome or insecure with their current situation.

Withdrawing does not mean no longer interested or caring about the school. We remain concerned for the school and hoping it turns around, even if we didn’t want to be part of the uncertainty the next couple of years.

[Anonymous]

Then the BOT should look at any college or university for guidance. These institutions encourage professors to engage in professional activities outside of the institution they work. They recognize the value in doing so - the value in increasing a professor's practice and the value in promoting the university. However these institutions also have policy about outside professional activities that clearly stipulate that the outside activities should NOT interfere with the work a professor is hired to do at the university. Policies also stipulate the ethics of making money from these outside activities particularly if your role as a professor at that institution is contributing to your value in those outside activities. It's pretty cut and dry.

Hiring RG without making similar stipulations was naive on the part of the BOT. My problem with RG is that it wasn't naive to him. He knew what he was doing and knew the benefits these dual roles would bring to him financially and professionally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then the BOT should look at any college or university for guidance. These institutions encourage professors to engage in professional activities outside of the institution they work. They recognize the value in doing so - the value in increasing a professor's practice and the value in promoting the university. However these institutions also have policy about outside professional activities that clearly stipulate that the outside activities should NOT interfere with the work a professor is hired to do at the university. Policies also stipulate the ethics of making money from these outside activities particularly if your role as a professor at that institution is contributing to your value in those outside activities. It's pretty cut and dry.

Hiring RG without making similar stipulations was naive on the part of the BOT. My problem with RG is that it wasn't naive to him. He knew what he was doing and knew the benefits these dual roles would bring to him financially and professionally.

Bot was naive. RG was calculating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then the BOT should look at any college or university for guidance. These institutions encourage professors to engage in professional activities outside of the institution they work. They recognize the value in doing so - the value in increasing a professor's practice and the value in promoting the university. However these institutions also have policy about outside professional activities that clearly stipulate that the outside activities should NOT interfere with the work a professor is hired to do at the university. Policies also stipulate the ethics of making money from these outside activities particularly if your role as a professor at that institution is contributing to your value in those outside activities. It's pretty cut and dry.

Hiring RG without making similar stipulations was naive on the part of the BOT. My problem with RG is that it wasn't naive to him. He knew what he was doing and knew the benefits these dual roles would bring to him financially and professionally.

Bot was naive. RG was calculating.

Honestly this is what it all boils down to.

[Anonymous]

Enough with all of this. We have had enough swirl and drama; this thread is just re-traumatizing. Every family I know.is hoping the ship rights. It will take time, and we dont need all of DCUM breathlessly weighing in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Enough with all of this. We have had enough swirl and drama; this thread is just re-traumatizing. Every family I know.is hoping the ship rights. It will take time, and we dont need all of DCUM breathlessly weighing in.

Parents simply use this forum to vent the frustrations they couldn’t for years. Telling them to keep it themselves isn’t helpful. In the long scheme of things only those who choose to post or read this - some looking for a place to vent, others hoping to learn something since the school doesn’t share much - come here. Do people who aren’t in the ssfs community post here? Probably. But telling them to keep quiet achieves what exactly? If this blog bothers you, why are you reading it? No one is disrespectful here, just sharing concerns, and hopes for a better future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Enough with all of this. We have had enough swirl and drama; this thread is just re-traumatizing. Every family I know.is hoping the ship rights. It will take time, and we dont need all of DCUM breathlessly weighing in.

Re-traumatizing? This thread is optional and there is real trauma in the world. The uncertainty and recent turmoil of a 40k private school is obviously troubling to those of us who are part of the community, but it's hardly traumatizing.

[Anonymous]

I saw him yesterday at CAVA in the Kentlands wearing all black clothing. He looked very happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw him yesterday at CAVA in the Kentlands wearing all black clothing. He looked very happy.

I bet he is! Making money from his side business (now main business), and I would assume he received a hefty severance package from SSFS. Living the life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then the BOT should look at any college or university for guidance. These institutions encourage professors to engage in professional activities outside of the institution they work. They recognize the value in doing so - the value in increasing a professor's practice and the value in promoting the university. However these institutions also have policy about outside professional activities that clearly stipulate that the outside activities should NOT interfere with the work a professor is hired to do at the university. Policies also stipulate the ethics of making money from these outside activities particularly if your role as a professor at that institution is contributing to your value in those outside activities. It's pretty cut and dry.

Hiring RG without making similar stipulations was naive on the part of the BOT. My problem with RG is that it wasn't naive to him. He knew what he was doing and knew the benefits these dual roles would bring to him financially and professionally.

Bot was naive. RG was calculating.

Honestly this is what it all boils down to.

RG’s outside consulting and DEI work is public and transparent. The board knew exactly what he was doing and obviously didn’t have a problem with it or they wouldn’t have hired him. Nothing calculating about it. It just didn’t work out. This happens a lot with heads of school. Everyone moves on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw him yesterday at CAVA in the Kentlands wearing all black clothing. He looked very happy.

I bet he is! Making money from his side business (now main business), and I would assume he received a hefty severance package from SSFS. Living the life.

Leaving SSFS probably gives him a lot more to talk about in his speaking engagements. Doesnt need to talk about how he was targeted by 16 year olds on campus. Has some new material now, on this plantation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then the BOT should look at any college or university for guidance. These institutions encourage professors to engage in professional activities outside of the institution they work. They recognize the value in doing so - the value in increasing a professor's practice and the value in promoting the university. However these institutions also have policy about outside professional activities that clearly stipulate that the outside activities should NOT interfere with the work a professor is hired to do at the university. Policies also stipulate the ethics of making money from these outside activities particularly if your role as a professor at that institution is contributing to your value in those outside activities. It's pretty cut and dry.

Hiring RG without making similar stipulations was naive on the part of the BOT. My problem with RG is that it wasn't naive to him. He knew what he was doing and knew the benefits these dual roles would bring to him financially and professionally.

Bot was naive. RG was calculating.

Honestly this is what it all boils down to.

RG’s outside consulting and DEI work is public and transparent. The board knew exactly what he was doing and obviously didn’t have a problem with it or they wouldn’t have hired him. Nothing calculating about it. It just didn’t work out. This happens a lot with heads of school. Everyone moves on.

I think it's more complicated than that. The extent to which RG ran his business - to the detriment of SSFS day to day operations - could NOT have been predicted by the BOT.

[Anonymous]

Plot twist: RG’s been hired as the Associate Director of the Friends Council on Education. George Fox give me strength!

[Anonymous]

No one cares anymorw. Onwards.