Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Enough with the virtue-signaling. Get a life.

Agree with this. I also think the Maret issue is silly. If Maret hadn't made a new contract, don't we all know what would happen to that property?

Yes, it would be properly administered by DPR like other publicly owner recreational property where different groups and individuals could sign up for slots as needed.

Anonymous wrote:The big issue with the Maret deal is/was the lack of transparency. The stakeholders should be participants in the decision-making process. It seems that there was little encouragement--if any--of public input from Hardy parents, the residents of Georgetown, and perhaps even Maret parents, who might not have wanted $1M+ of their school's income going towards a public field.

The residents of Gtown didn't have much of a say regarding the $200M Ellington building, did they?

Not surprised they (and the others) were ignored here.

The big issue with the Maret deal is/was the lack of transparency. The stakeholders should be participants in the decision-making process. It seems that there was little encouragement--if any--of public input from Hardy parents, the residents of Georgetown, and perhaps even Maret parents, who might not have wanted $1M+ of their school's income going towards a public field.

Anonymous wrote:The metaphor of DCPS kids looking at Maret kids on that field is the stuff of college application essays — for both the Maret and DCPS kids. Any private school student who played on that field analyzing his/her privilege in a college essay would have a lot to work with!

Aah! Maret is so crafty at strategizing college admissions. Surely it’s worth it to those Hardy kids who have to travel across town on public transportation to get to their practices and games.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Enough with the virtue-signaling. Get a life.

Agree with this. I also think the Maret issue is silly. If Maret hadn't made a new contract, don't we all know what would happen to that property?

yes - more kids would get to use it.

The metaphor of DCPS kids looking at Maret kids on that field is the stuff of college application essays — for both the Maret and DCPS kids. Any private school student who played on that field analyzing his/her privilege in a college essay would have a lot to work with!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Enough with the virtue-signaling. Get a life.

Agree with this. I also think the Maret issue is silly. If Maret hadn't made a new contract, don't we all know what would happen to that property?

What?

Anonymous wrote:Enough with the virtue-signaling. Get a life.

Agree with this. I also think the Maret issue is silly. If Maret hadn't made a new contract, don't we all know what would happen to that property?

Enough with the virtue-signaling. Get a life.

Anonymous wrote:Great question., it is not just the Maret lease, but the Sidwell acquisition and probably other issues too.

+1

What they did to those old residents was no about Quaker values, but capitalism at its worst.

Anonymous wrote:Although the Maret lease has prompted my interest, I was to pose a broader question. Do faculty, students and families engage in discussions as to the school's conduct at these institutions? Do community members have license to think critically and speak?

"The school's conduct" is a pretty broad topic. There are times discussions are inappropriate or even prohibited by law — the obvious example is a school's decision not to re-hire a staff member. Parents should not expect to have input on that type of decision after the fact.

More broadly, organizations have cultures and people have strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes administrators don't allow for sufficient feedback because they don't think of it, or they're just driven to get things done, not because they're philosophically opposed or dictatorial by temperament. And for each parent who would like to comment on every impending decision, there's another thinking, "Blah blah blah, just make a decision!" It's a balancing act, always.

The answer to the original question depends almost entirely on the school, the leadership at that school, and the culture that's developed over decades. Overall, like any "boss," I think most school administrators crave feedback, as long as it's constructive and respectful — but I've certainly known and worked with some who don't.

If the topic itself is interesting, Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen's book, Thanks for the Feedback, is superb.

_____________________

Disclaimer: The anonymity here makes me uncomfortable; it's easy to write uninformed, personal, or mean-spirited posts when posters don't identify themselves. I have an account so you know whose words you're reading. I have more than 20 years' experience as a teacher and administrator in independent schools. I have read hundreds of admission files, and I have counseled hundreds of students in finding their next schools in the DC area. If you disagree with something I've written, you're in good company — there's a long line of past students and parents ahead of you. If you want to chat further, please feel free to contact me offline: peter <at> peterbraverman <dotcom>

Sidwell has other ethical issues that are non-acquisition related.

Anonymous wrote:Great question., it is not just the Maret lease, but the Sidwell acquisition and probably other issues too.

What was the ethical issue with Sidwell? The Washington Home was for sale. They bought it. There are still residents there to this day for a dollar per year.

Great question., it is not just the Maret lease, but the Sidwell acquisition and probably other issues too.

Although the Maret lease has prompted my interest, I was to pose a broader question. Do faculty, students and families engage in discussions as to the school's conduct at these institutions? Do community members have license to think critically and speak?