Reply to What is going on at Sidwell - LOTS AND LOTS OF TURNOVER

Forum Index » Private & Independent Schools

Reply to "What is going on at Sidwell - LOTS AND LOTS OF TURNOVER - Upper School Head leaving"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]no school in the area (except for WES?) has had leadership turnover even close to Sidwell's recent activity.[/quote]
Here's where you lose me....
Sidwell HOS 1978-1997 (19 yrs)
Sidwell HOS 1997-2009 (12 yrs)
Sidwell HOS 2010-2014 (4 yrs)
You try to make it sound as if Sidwell has had some history of churning. In fact, all that happened was that the last person left after a relatively brief period. I sense you are not an unbiased observer. [/quote]
There was an interim head of school between Bruce Stewart & Farquhar which is not the norm in that position. Usually the Head of School gives a year's notice, so the school can conduct a search and avoid this scenario. But, Mr. Stewart vacated his position in January 2009 and there was an interim head of school. A January exit is not standard procedure for this position.  Interesting side note: Bruce Stewart is the currently the Chairman of the GEMS Americas Advisory Board, the same for profit organization of schools which has hired Mr. Farquhar to run their new school in Dubai. Clearly not a coincidence. The men must have great respect for one another. Feel free to read the following articles which support the above. 
http://ww2.gazette.net/stories/11192008/nortnew203221_32477.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092001805.html
GEMS Schools: 
http://www.gemseducation.com/MENASA/parents/contents.php?pageid=4792&submenuid=11&parentid=1&expandable=1
http://www.gemseducation.com/MENASA/finalparents/news-details.php?newsid=847[/quote]

Can you please explain where the Trilateral Commission and the Masons fit in to this, as well?[/quote]
I'm not a regular on this board, but based on the way people take shots at one another and have no regard for the facts... I know enough that it is vital to provide more than hearsay when having a dialogue and there is a question about concrete facts. It took one google search and all of 3-5 minutes to put together the facts I posted in my previous post. I don't have a dog in this race and just provided a timeline. I also happened upon a connection which I think shows that the recent Sidwell head of schools hold each other in high regard. It's amazing how this is such a snarky board that when facts and their legitimate sources are presented, instead of people appreciating or at least acknowledging them (or saying nothing), they feel they have to personally attack the person who provided the credible sources. There are some seriously angry, bitter & disturbed posters on this board and I see the futility in attempting to even have a discussion based upon cold hard facts. I guess I should have known better as the board is anonymous. With that said, I do appreciate DCUM's providing the platform for communication and will excuse myself from this thread moving forward. [/quote]
I'm the first poster in the string above, but not the "Masons" poster.  I find your final post suspect for several reasons.

1. You say you're not a regular to this board, and you claim to have "no dog in this fight," but you started this discussion about HOS tenure, you analyzed the past [i]80-90 years[/i] of tenure of the heads at several local schools, and you've advanced several arguments about what is normal and proper for private schools.  You repeatedly suggested some turmoil at Sidwell, even though an examination of the facts proved that false.

2. You now want to start a discussion about resignation in January 2009, and tell us how abnormal that is (even though you're a newcomer to these issues, right?).  But while you focus on that one Gazette article that mentions a January departure, you ignore the dozen or more articles (including the WaPo article you link) which say it wasn't a January departure at all, but rather a normal end-of-year departure.  I can link a few of these many posts, if your Google skills are suddenly now!

3. You want to highlight the interim HOS, as if that suggests something problematic and sudden.  In fact, my quick Google quickly revealed posts (from DCUM even) which make clear the reason for that interim situation what that the incoming HOS was fulfilling his contract to Bullis, and so could not arrive as soon as the Sidwell post became vacant.

3. Now that your argument about tenure length seems to be flagging, you try to shift the discussion to some innuendo about a connection to GEMS, which you're certain to point out is "for profit" and "not a coincidence."  Perhaps in future posts you'll try to expand on the innuendo.

It seems clear to me you're not some newcomer who is just objectively looking into the facts of the situation, but rather someone who is trying to advance a particular line of attack.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics