SSFS Will Stay Open

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The coalition posted today offering to meet with unsure families to answer questions. Why in the world is the coalition who is offering to talk to parents? Do you know who has the answers and responsibility (legal and moral) to strengthen the school? The Board! That offer was I’m sure made in good faith my coalition leaders but again showing the massive dysfunction of this system.

Somewhat relatedly, I don’t think there is anything magical, pardon the pun, about May 15th. It’s not like they won’t accept your kids back if you decide in June or July. Everyone should take their time and explore all the options they need to.

Things like this is why I get a weird feeling that the coalition is all about saving their school but not necessarily looking out for my family’s best interest. So they’ll do and save anything to keep those doors open. Obviously if it works out it can work out for my family too but that isn’t really the coalitions primary goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The coalition posted today offering to meet with unsure families to answer questions. Why in the world is the coalition who is offering to talk to parents? Do you know who has the answers and responsibility (legal and moral) to strengthen the school? The Board! That offer was I’m sure made in good faith my coalition leaders but again showing the massive dysfunction of this system.

Somewhat relatedly, I don’t think there is anything magical, pardon the pun, about May 15th. It’s not like they won’t accept your kids back if you decide in June or July. Everyone should take their time and explore all the options they need to.

I think that meeting last night was the BOTs definition of answering our questions. Still waiting for some sort of communication to come from today's monthly BOT meeting which hopefully will announce the resignation of more board members. We won't stay unless more resign.

[Anonymous]

People on Slack are jumping all over those questioning one particular board member but I still don't get it. As explained by the board itself, there's a long history of financial troubles at the school that ultimately culminated in the announced closure. Well, there's a board member who also has a long history (19 years to be exact) with the school in various decision making or at least witnessing capacities.

Coalition members are defending this person as being the only one to take responsibility and one of the few that has been receptive to the coalition. Maybe this person is just trying to save their reputation?

Who knows. More stuff that ordinary families just don't get to know. So oust as many board members as possible - that's what I say.

[Anonymous]

What happened to getting rid of all but a couple of board members for continuity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People on Slack are jumping all over those questioning one particular board member but I still don't get it. As explained by the board itself, there's a long history of financial troubles at the school that ultimately culminated in the announced closure. Well, there's a board member who also has a long history (19 years to be exact) with the school in various decision making or at least witnessing capacities.

Coalition members are defending this person as being the only one to take responsibility and one of the few that has been receptive to the coalition. Maybe this person is just trying to save their reputation?

Who knows. More stuff that ordinary families just don't get to know. So oust as many board members as possible - that's what I say.

That person was not involved for all 19 years straight through. They recently re-joined the Board after having been away for several years, and walked into an impending crisis. They should not be blamed for the last five or so years. You know what my takeaway from all those Slack comments is? The Coalition says the reopening deal could not have happened without that person. They are in our corner 100%.

Let's stop assuming the worst of an individual who cares very deeply about the school. It looks like the whole Board won't be kicked out at this point, but they can change how they operate and make themselves open to more regular feedback going forward. I get it's disappointing but none of them want this to happen again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happened to getting rid of all but a couple of board members for continuity?

That is still happening. Just yet to be announced. At least 8 have already resigned.

Parents who are hinging their decision on seeing "the list of names" -- which specific Board members left, which teachers are returning -- are not going to get that info by tomorrow, and probably ever, out of respect for those people's privacy. Hopefully you can come to a decision without it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on Slack are jumping all over those questioning one particular board member but I still don't get it. As explained by the board itself, there's a long history of financial troubles at the school that ultimately culminated in the announced closure. Well, there's a board member who also has a long history (19 years to be exact) with the school in various decision making or at least witnessing capacities.

Coalition members are defending this person as being the only one to take responsibility and one of the few that has been receptive to the coalition. Maybe this person is just trying to save their reputation?

Who knows. More stuff that ordinary families just don't get to know. So oust as many board members as possible - that's what I say.

That person was not involved for all 19 years straight through. They recently re-joined the Board after having been away for several years, and walked into an impending crisis. They should not be blamed for the last five or so years. You know what my takeaway from all those Slack comments is? The Coalition says the reopening deal could not have happened without that person. They are in our corner 100%.

Let's stop assuming the worst of an individual who cares very deeply about the school. It looks like the whole Board won't be kicked out at this point, but they can change how they operate and make themselves open to more regular feedback going forward. I get it's disappointing but none of them want this to happen again.

I'm so tired of being accused of assuming the worst in people. As others have said, if you don't want parents to make an assumption about one of the worst decisions the school has ever made, then they should have done better to begin with and/or been more transparent before Monday. Yeah yeah yeah we know this person re-joined the board this year. And now, this person wasn't there for 19 years "straight" - 8 years as a board member, then a break, then 9 years as HOS, then a break, then back to being on the board. So? Are we to assume that it was only on those breaks in between that poor decisions were being made? I'm not trying to vilify anyone but the fact of the matter is that this person was there for the long history of bad decisions - they were part of the bad decision making at times and at other times they were witness to the bad decisions. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Sure, people can learn from their mistakes and I'm all for second and third chances. But it's not at all unreasonable for parents to be questioning this person's positionality during this long history of bad management. Again, if you or anyone else doesn't like that questioning too bad. Stop policing our thoughts. This whole experience is NOT normal and the decision to shut down a month ago and every thing since has sucked!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on Slack are jumping all over those questioning one particular board member but I still don't get it. As explained by the board itself, there's a long history of financial troubles at the school that ultimately culminated in the announced closure. Well, there's a board member who also has a long history (19 years to be exact) with the school in various decision making or at least witnessing capacities.

Coalition members are defending this person as being the only one to take responsibility and one of the few that has been receptive to the coalition. Maybe this person is just trying to save their reputation?

Who knows. More stuff that ordinary families just don't get to know. So oust as many board members as possible - that's what I say.

That person was not involved for all 19 years straight through. They recently re-joined the Board after having been away for several years, and walked into an impending crisis. They should not be blamed for the last five or so years. You know what my takeaway from all those Slack comments is? The Coalition says the reopening deal could not have happened without that person. They are in our corner 100%.

Let's stop assuming the worst of an individual who cares very deeply about the school. It looks like the whole Board won't be kicked out at this point, but they can change how they operate and make themselves open to more regular feedback going forward. I get it's disappointing but none of them want this to happen again.

Actually, never mind. I'm so done with all of this crap. We will NOT be re-enrolling. I sincerely wish the school well and what the coalition accomplished was amazing - I commend them. But the whole thing is weird and the way families (and teachers) have been treated (other than the coalition leadership who I guess are "in the know") has been unconscionable. We were accepted at another school and the fact that I held out until the day before should have been seen as a sign that we wanted to feel better about SSFS. We do not. The above post, the meeting on Monday, the fear of saying anything questioning or negative on slack, having to resort to this god-awful DCUM board - it's just been too much. IF "magical" was code for cult like then yeah - it's been "magical" this past month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on Slack are jumping all over those questioning one particular board member but I still don't get it. As explained by the board itself, there's a long history of financial troubles at the school that ultimately culminated in the announced closure. Well, there's a board member who also has a long history (19 years to be exact) with the school in various decision making or at least witnessing capacities.

Coalition members are defending this person as being the only one to take responsibility and one of the few that has been receptive to the coalition. Maybe this person is just trying to save their reputation?

Who knows. More stuff that ordinary families just don't get to know. So oust as many board members as possible - that's what I say.

That person was not involved for all 19 years straight through. They recently re-joined the Board after having been away for several years, and walked into an impending crisis. They should not be blamed for the last five or so years. You know what my takeaway from all those Slack comments is? The Coalition says the reopening deal could not have happened without that person. They are in our corner 100%.

Let's stop assuming the worst of an individual who cares very deeply about the school. It looks like the whole Board won't be kicked out at this point, but they can change how they operate and make themselves open to more regular feedback going forward. I get it's disappointing but none of them want this to happen again.

Well, if the coalition says it, it must be true? Part of how we got to the point was by having the same complacent trust in the BOT and School that you are leaning towards with the coalition. We can be both thankful for the coalition and NOT complacently trusting at the same time. I can appreciate one particular board members acknowledgement and ownership of bad decisions and still think they should resign. If we don't remain vigilant and be given the grace to be assertive, questioning, suspicious, and even angry, then we'll be right back here in 3 years saying our final goodbyes to SSFS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on Slack are jumping all over those questioning one particular board member but I still don't get it. As explained by the board itself, there's a long history of financial troubles at the school that ultimately culminated in the announced closure. Well, there's a board member who also has a long history (19 years to be exact) with the school in various decision making or at least witnessing capacities.

Coalition members are defending this person as being the only one to take responsibility and one of the few that has been receptive to the coalition. Maybe this person is just trying to save their reputation?

Who knows. More stuff that ordinary families just don't get to know. So oust as many board members as possible - that's what I say.

That person was not involved for all 19 years straight through. They recently re-joined the Board after having been away for several years, and walked into an impending crisis. They should not be blamed for the last five or so years. You know what my takeaway from all those Slack comments is? The Coalition says the reopening deal could not have happened without that person. They are in our corner 100%.

Let's stop assuming the worst of an individual who cares very deeply about the school. It looks like the whole Board won't be kicked out at this point, but they can change how they operate and make themselves open to more regular feedback going forward. I get it's disappointing but none of them want this to happen again.

I'm so tired of being accused of assuming the worst in people. As others have said, if you don't want parents to make an assumption about one of the worst decisions the school has ever made, then they should have done better to begin with and/or been more transparent before Monday. Yeah yeah yeah we know this person re-joined the board this year. And now, this person wasn't there for 19 years "straight" - 8 years as a board member, then a break, then 9 years as HOS, then a break, then back to being on the board. So? Are we to assume that it was only on those breaks in between that poor decisions were being made? I'm not trying to vilify anyone but the fact of the matter is that this person was there for the long history of bad decisions - they were part of the bad decision making at times and at other times they were witness to the bad decisions. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Sure, people can learn from their mistakes and I'm all for second and third chances. But it's not at all unreasonable for parents to be questioning this person's positionality during this long history of bad management. Again, if you or anyone else doesn't like that questioning too bad. Stop policing our thoughts. This whole experience is NOT normal and the decision to shut down a month ago and every thing since has sucked!

The intentions may have bean good but this board member’s execution of pretty much everything they had their hand on was disastrous. I hope at least this person won’t return as board? But seems like they’re one of the main spokesperson for the school right now and the coalition loves them so I guess they’ll stay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why people who no longer go to SSFS stalk any SSFS forum and post. It's strange. There's good shows on Netflix! If you need a recommendation, I just rewatched Ginny & Georgia in anticipation of Season 3 dropping next month.

So the only people who can care about and post in this thread are current SSFS students? Not alumni? Not potential families that you will need in the future?

Enough of the access policing. You're not making the case for SSFS any better.

Good point. What about past faculty/ past parent? That’s me. I sat through the zoom meeting this week because I have an interest in what happens to SSFS.
PP should be careful about alienating a broad population of potential donors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on Slack are jumping all over those questioning one particular board member but I still don't get it. As explained by the board itself, there's a long history of financial troubles at the school that ultimately culminated in the announced closure. Well, there's a board member who also has a long history (19 years to be exact) with the school in various decision making or at least witnessing capacities.

Coalition members are defending this person as being the only one to take responsibility and one of the few that has been receptive to the coalition. Maybe this person is just trying to save their reputation?

Who knows. More stuff that ordinary families just don't get to know. So oust as many board members as possible - that's what I say.

That person was not involved for all 19 years straight through. They recently re-joined the Board after having been away for several years, and walked into an impending crisis. They should not be blamed for the last five or so years. You know what my takeaway from all those Slack comments is? The Coalition says the reopening deal could not have happened without that person. They are in our corner 100%.

Let's stop assuming the worst of an individual who cares very deeply about the school. It looks like the whole Board won't be kicked out at this point, but they can change how they operate and make themselves open to more regular feedback going forward. I get it's disappointing but none of them want this to happen again.

I'm so tired of being accused of assuming the worst in people. As others have said, if you don't want parents to make an assumption about one of the worst decisions the school has ever made, then they should have done better to begin with and/or been more transparent before Monday. Yeah yeah yeah we know this person re-joined the board this year. And now, this person wasn't there for 19 years "straight" - 8 years as a board member, then a break, then 9 years as HOS, then a break, then back to being on the board. So? Are we to assume that it was only on those breaks in between that poor decisions were being made? I'm not trying to vilify anyone but the fact of the matter is that this person was there for the long history of bad decisions - they were part of the bad decision making at times and at other times they were witness to the bad decisions. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Sure, people can learn from their mistakes and I'm all for second and third chances. But it's not at all unreasonable for parents to be questioning this person's positionality during this long history of bad management. Again, if you or anyone else doesn't like that questioning too bad. Stop policing our thoughts. This whole experience is NOT normal and the decision to shut down a month ago and every thing since has sucked!

The intentions may have bean good but this board member’s execution of pretty much everything they had their hand on was disastrous. I hope at least this person won’t return as board? But seems like they’re one of the main spokesperson for the school right now and the coalition loves them so I guess they’ll stay?

I agree. This person shouldn't return as a board member. There are so many better ways this could be handled other than this person staying on while the coalition does damage control by telling those of us concerned that we are wrong and we are villifying, etc. This person could resign from the BOT and simply be part of the coalition or helpful in other ways. This person could announce now that they will be stepping down in 6 months or a year and that they are staying on because of their history to help the new BOT transition. Anything would be better than keeping the status quo and then criticizing those who question it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, never mind. I'm so done with all of this crap. We will NOT be re-enrolling. I sincerely wish the school well and what the coalition accomplished was amazing - I commend them. But the whole thing is weird and the way families (and teachers) have been treated (other than the coalition leadership who I guess are "in the know") has been unconscionable. We were accepted at another school and the fact that I held out until the day before should have been seen as a sign that we wanted to feel better about SSFS. We do not. The above post, the meeting on Monday, the fear of saying anything questioning or negative on slack, having to resort to this god-awful DCUM board - it's just been too much. IF "magical" was code for cult like then yeah - it's been "magical" this past month.

No one said not to ask questions or be negative. We're saying if you're mad at the Baord, be mad at all 24 of them who made the final call. And the many Board members over the years who have since left; their choices also got us here.

I think I have figured out who you are by comparing these posts to the Slack. How would you feel if someone started posting about you and saying the school's failure was all your fault because you pulled your kids out? Ignoring the hundreds of parents who have done the same over the past couple years? No one would do that, because this isn't a witch hunt on individuals. I imagine I'm not the only one who's uncomfortable with trying to turn it into one.

I agree this is not a great place to get concrete info (I joined mostly to call out misinfo when I see it) but there are Coalition 1-on-1 sessions today. Anything they can't answer, it's for legal/confidentiality reasons. People here love to make it look like there is no plan. Don't let them discourage you. But if you do ultimately leave, I wish you and your child the best. Her happiness is what's most important, wherever that is 🙂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, never mind. I'm so done with all of this crap. We will NOT be re-enrolling. I sincerely wish the school well and what the coalition accomplished was amazing - I commend them. But the whole thing is weird and the way families (and teachers) have been treated (other than the coalition leadership who I guess are "in the know") has been unconscionable. We were accepted at another school and the fact that I held out until the day before should have been seen as a sign that we wanted to feel better about SSFS. We do not. The above post, the meeting on Monday, the fear of saying anything questioning or negative on slack, having to resort to this god-awful DCUM board - it's just been too much. IF "magical" was code for cult like then yeah - it's been "magical" this past month.

No one said not to ask questions or be negative. We're saying if you're mad at the Baord, be mad at all 24 of them who made the final call. And the many Board members over the years who have since left; their choices also got us here.

I think I have figured out who you are by comparing these posts to the Slack. How would you feel if someone started posting about you and saying the school's failure was all your fault because you pulled your kids out? Ignoring the hundreds of parents who have done the same over the past couple years? No one would do that, because this isn't a witch hunt on individuals. I imagine I'm not the only one who's uncomfortable with trying to turn it into one.

I agree this is not a great place to get concrete info (I joined mostly to call out misinfo when I see it) but there are Coalition 1-on-1 sessions today. Anything they can't answer, it's for legal/confidentiality reasons. People here love to make it look like there is no plan. Don't let them discourage you. But if you do ultimately leave, I wish you and your child the best. Her happiness is what's most important, wherever that is 🙂

Why are we so protective and defensive around this one board member when there have been a lot of names thrown out there and talked about all through these conversations? If this is a board member twice over and you once a head of school, why are we so uncomfortable with saying they have some accountability and may need to step back to make space for new leadership?

[Anonymous]

Aside from students, I feel the worst for teacher and staff who were broadsided by the original announcement and now they don't even know if they'll be asked back. Even if they enroll 250+, many will be let go.

It's not just money that will save SSFS. The community is fractured, and I'm not sure you can come back from this trust being broken. The majority of the BOT needs to resign. And you need to put "normal", but connected people up, not just Coalition members. Those who have shown the commitment to rebuilding from scratch.

If they can show that they listened to the community and make a commitment to change before Friday that would be swell.