SSFS HOS leaving

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure how you assume from a post on an anonymous message board that someone is worked up or upset. Perhaps that's just projection on your part?

Regardless, I hope that your worries about SSFS will diminish over time. And again, I encourage everyone who is seeking an independent school for their child, to come have a look at SSFS. No school is perfect. So in your quest to find the best fit for your child, check out SSFS!

I’m not the pp you’ve been going back and forth with but tbh you do seem worked pretty worked up and upset.

People’s kids have had different experiences and therefore their attitudes vary. I am hopeful about the school’s future but you are not instilling any confidence with your stepford parent routine.

Tbh, I’ve had my fill of “isn’t it sooooo special and magical here?!?” during rg’s tenure and I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and frank dialogue moving forward.

[Anonymous]

When you baselessly accuse a poster of having a "stepford parent routine", I think you give yourself away as being worked up.

The point being made was a simple one. Stakeholders absolutely raise concerns and there are many concerns to be raised right now. Stakeholders also try to become part of the solution finding. What makes no sense for a stakeholder to do is to post in all caps (another indication that someone may be worked up and upset) that people should stay away from SSFS or that SSFS should not be on the top of anyone's list. This behavior doesn't solve any problems.

In what have been too many posts seemingly defending the behavior or telling folks they should stay far away from SSFS, some alarmist statements were made about how many teachers have left. More than one poster attempted to discredit both the numbers and the semantics of the statement that was made.

All concerns are valid. No poster has said, "it's soooo special and magical here". I think it's obvious that people who post or read this forum are obviously concerned about the school. But again, telling people to stay away is not how stakeholders behave. This doesn't suggest that you should be dishonest when someone asks you about your experience. Stakeholders speak up. Stakeholders participate in problem-solving. Stakeholders do not tell people to stay away from the very place they themselves have stake in.

[Anonymous]

There you go again, telling people how they’re allowed to talk.

[Anonymous]

Moving on...

Fourth week on the school year starts Monday. My kids are happy.

[Anonymous]

I have not been part of the current thread but I am a parent who moved on from SSFS this year due to the toxic unstable environment under RG. The exact amount faculty and students that left this school doesn’t matter. It is not normal. There has been a lot of senior staff turnover over RG’s tenure.

I have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on my children’s education at this school. Expressing the opinion of not enrolling at SSFS at this time is sound and prudent advice in my opinion. You are paying for a premium education. Everyone has a point of view and telling people to not express it just makes the situation worse.

It is possible that with time, the school will recover now that RG is gone. If you had a great experience at SSFS, then I am happy for you. As parents, we want what is best for our children. But for my family, I wish that we had never attended this school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you baselessly accuse a poster of having a "stepford parent routine", I think you give yourself away as being worked up.

The point being made was a simple one. Stakeholders absolutely raise concerns and there are many concerns to be raised right now. Stakeholders also try to become part of the solution finding. What makes no sense for a stakeholder to do is to post in all caps (another indication that someone may be worked up and upset) that people should stay away from SSFS or that SSFS should not be on the top of anyone's list. This behavior doesn't solve any problems.

In what have been too many posts seemingly defending the behavior or telling folks they should stay far away from SSFS, some alarmist statements were made about how many teachers have left. More than one poster attempted to discredit both the numbers and the semantics of the statement that was made.

All concerns are valid. No poster has said, "it's soooo special and magical here". I think it's obvious that people who post or read this forum are obviously concerned about the school. But again, telling people to stay away is not how stakeholders behave. This doesn't suggest that you should be dishonest when someone asks you about your experience. Stakeholders speak up. Stakeholders participate in problem-solving. Stakeholders do not tell people to stay away from the very place they themselves have stake in.

I wasn’t aware that only your defined “stakeholder” was allowed to express an opinion on this chat group. If someone feels strongly enough that their experience was bad enough that they think new families should “stay away” until the future is more clear they can say that. If you have counter arguments as to why this is a great school to consider, you express that. No one makes a final decision about their kids school based on comments on an anonymous thread anyway.

But saying just “stakeholders” can comment and it can’t be strongly critical language is trying to control the thread. I’m not sure why you believe that is for you to do.

As someone pointed out, parents are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to send their kids to private school. They don’t need to feel compelled to enter into a changing situation and hope it works out. People who are here can tell them to stay away or not. It really isn’t up to you to decide what they’re allowed to say and how. It’s their choice.

The future of ssfs is currently murky. It seems like they’re moving in the right direction, but only time can tell. CL may not even remain hos next year (highly likely). That’s going to be another change. Prospective families may want to wait to see who the final hos selection is to ensured it’s not another RG before they enroll.

CFO just left. Prospective families (and current) may want to see why this happened and whether financial mismanagement was found by the board and what that might mean for the schools future. There are many reasons to stay away from ssfs until more is known.

Families are the customers of this school. They aren’t running the school business. They have a right to give their money to a thriving school, not a school pulling itself back up. But if they want to ride through the storm that’s their choice too. And anyone on this thread can express an opinion on both sides of that debate.

[Anonymous]

I don't see where people have been told not to express their opinions about the things happening at SSFS. Everyone in the SSFS community has differing experiences and opinions. Why not let potential new families decide for themselves whether they think SSFS is a good fit for them? Why tell them not to even bother looking? I believe that was the point trying to be made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you baselessly accuse a poster of having a "stepford parent routine", I think you give yourself away as being worked up.

The point being made was a simple one. Stakeholders absolutely raise concerns and there are many concerns to be raised right now. Stakeholders also try to become part of the solution finding. What makes no sense for a stakeholder to do is to post in all caps (another indication that someone may be worked up and upset) that people should stay away from SSFS or that SSFS should not be on the top of anyone's list. This behavior doesn't solve any problems.

In what have been too many posts seemingly defending the behavior or telling folks they should stay far away from SSFS, some alarmist statements were made about how many teachers have left. More than one poster attempted to discredit both the numbers and the semantics of the statement that was made.

All concerns are valid. No poster has said, "it's soooo special and magical here". I think it's obvious that people who post or read this forum are obviously concerned about the school. But again, telling people to stay away is not how stakeholders behave. This doesn't suggest that you should be dishonest when someone asks you about your experience. Stakeholders speak up. Stakeholders participate in problem-solving. Stakeholders do not tell people to stay away from the very place they themselves have stake in.

I wasn’t aware that only your defined “stakeholder” was allowed to express an opinion on this chat group. If someone feels strongly enough that their experience was bad enough that they think new families should “stay away” until the future is more clear they can say that. If you have counter arguments as to why this is a great school to consider, you express that. No one makes a final decision about their kids school based on comments on an anonymous thread anyway.

But saying just “stakeholders” can comment and it can’t be strongly critical language is trying to control the thread. I’m not sure why you believe that is for you to do.

As someone pointed out, parents are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to send their kids to private school. They don’t need to feel compelled to enter into a changing situation and hope it works out. People who are here can tell them to stay away or not. It really isn’t up to you to decide what they’re allowed to say and how. It’s their choice.

The future of ssfs is currently murky. It seems like they’re moving in the right direction, but only time can tell. CL may not even remain hos next year (highly likely). That’s going to be another change. Prospective families may want to wait to see who the final hos selection is to ensured it’s not another RG before they enroll.

CFO just left. Prospective families (and current) may want to see why this happened and whether financial mismanagement was found by the board and what that might mean for the schools future. There are many reasons to stay away from ssfs until more is known.

Families are the customers of this school. They aren’t running the school business. They have a right to give their money to a thriving school, not a school pulling itself back up. But if they want to ride through the storm that’s their choice too. And anyone on this thread can express an opinion on both sides of that debate.

Of course you can say what you want ...and you have ...and some people don't agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't see where people have been told not to express their opinions about the things happening at SSFS. Everyone in the SSFS community has differing experiences and opinions. Why not let potential new families decide for themselves whether they think SSFS is a good fit for them? Why tell them not to even bother looking? I believe that was the point trying to be made.

At this point I’m just perplexed. “ I don't see where people have been told not to express their opinions about the things happening at SSFS” — is followed by “ Why tell them not to even bother looking?” - isn’t that telling someone not to express their opinion?

[Anonymous]

No, that was a question - "Why tell them not to even bother looking?" That isn't someone telling you not to express an opinion.

Your opinions are well documented which clearly means you've been able to say what you want. Best of luck to you and your family this school year.

[Anonymous]

It wasn’t me who told anyone not to bother looking. But I would think the answer to “ Why tell them not to even bother looking?” is that it was that person’s “opinion” that right now ssfs isn’t worth considering if you have other choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have not been part of the current thread but I am a parent who moved on from SSFS this year due to the toxic unstable environment under RG. The exact amount faculty and students that left this school doesn’t matter. It is not normal. There has been a lot of senior staff turnover over RG’s tenure.

I have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on my children’s education at this school. Expressing the opinion of not enrolling at SSFS at this time is sound and prudent advice in my opinion. You are paying for a premium education. Everyone has a point of view and telling people to not express it just makes the situation worse.

It is possible that with time, the school will recover now that RG is gone. If you had a great experience at SSFS, then I am happy for you. As parents, we want what is best for our children. But for my family, I wish that we had never attended this school.

Serious question. How are your kids doing now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t me who told anyone not to bother looking. But I would think the answer to “ Why tell them not to even bother looking?” is that it was that person’s “opinion” that right now ssfs isn’t worth considering if you have other choices.

"And anyone on this thread can express an opinion on both sides of that debate." Right. And on the other side of that debate, it is my opinion that discouraging people from even looking at SSFS is counterproductive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t me who told anyone not to bother looking. But I would think the answer to “ Why tell them not to even bother looking?” is that it was that person’s “opinion” that right now ssfs isn’t worth considering if you have other choices.

"And anyone on this thread can express an opinion on both sides of that debate." Right. And on the other side of that debate, it is my opinion that discouraging people from even looking at SSFS is counterproductive.

and you should absolutely share why you think this year is a good year to consider enrolling. just like the other person shared why they thought it wasnt (high staff turnover, CFO departure etc).

[Anonymous]

65 pages in and this thread has officially lost the plot! As one of the 25+ employees who left last year, I’m curious: how does CL seem to be handling this tumultuous transition period? I was not at all surprised to hear that CG was let go. Lots of messy financial decisions under him and RG. One of Head’s primary roles was to raise the reputation and financial standing/endowment of the school. Objectively, we can agree that RG’s tenure was a failure in that regard…with support of a BoT that was seemingly asleep at the wheels. It is no surprise that the community is still worked up and hurt by his tenure. RG preached inclusivity while acting in a deeply divisive and selfish manner that was completely at odds with Quaker practice. The school lost a number of great faculty and families but I would encourage those remaining to remain positive and constructive. SSFS will always be a special place!