Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you talking about Bullis? Not only is it named after the former HoS (who was there at the time), but the construction company used is owned by the Board Chair. Their current building project is also under their contract as well. I feel like that's much more scandalous part.

The building at Bullis was renamed. Both buildings solicited bids from several companies and went with the best offer, which happened to be that company.

Anonymous wrote:Are you talking about Bullis? Not only is it named after the former HoS (who was there at the time), but the construction company used is owned by the Board Chair. Their current building project is also under their contract as well. I feel like that's much more scandalous part.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked with a smaller school in the South that named their new Upper School building after the former HOS that retired the year before. This was a school and community that didn't have a tradition of selling naming rights for new buildings and other campus spaces. It's considered gauche to demand your name on something. It was explained to me that spaces that are named after someone are done at the discretion of the Board, not because of someone being told "for $250 you can name this space."

The former HOS had come in 25 years earlier and navigated the school out of a financial crisis. I was left with the impression that he essentially saved it. He did much of the leg work to raise the funds for the new Upper School building. They broke ground a year after he retired, and the Board, along with those big donors who made the building possible, decided to name the building after him. They felt it was an appropriate legacy for someone who had such an impact of the school.

Makes sense. The case I mention is a private school in dc that is extremely expensive. It’s just that the school is a joint effort of teachers, parents, students, and hos. I think the hos was superb. But somehow I think there is no harm in not putting a name to the building. Especially since it is a collective effort. The hos also decided to include one of their own quote in the building. I think it’s just too much over the top.

That’s very sweet. I wish my child’s school used quotes from current faculty or leadership like this, rather than having a bunch of stuffy Latin phrases or old author quotes that no kid is going to know the meaning of!

Anonymous wrote:Are you talking about Bullis? Not only is it named after the former HoS (who was there at the time), but the construction company used is owned by the Board Chair. Their current building project is also under their contract as well. I feel like that's much more scandalous part.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked with a smaller school in the South that named their new Upper School building after the former HOS that retired the year before. This was a school and community that didn't have a tradition of selling naming rights for new buildings and other campus spaces. It's considered gauche to demand your name on something. It was explained to me that spaces that are named after someone are done at the discretion of the Board, not because of someone being told "for $250 you can name this space."

The former HOS had come in 25 years earlier and navigated the school out of a financial crisis. I was left with the impression that he essentially saved it. He did much of the leg work to raise the funds for the new Upper School building. They broke ground a year after he retired, and the Board, along with those big donors who made the building possible, decided to name the building after him. They felt it was an appropriate legacy for someone who had such an impact of the school.

Makes sense. The case I mention is a private school in dc that is extremely expensive. It’s just that the school is a joint effort of teachers, parents, students, and hos. I think the hos was superb. But somehow I think there is no harm in not putting a name to the building. Especially since it is a collective effort. The hos also decided to include one of their own quote in the building. I think it’s just too much over the top.

Anonymous wrote:I worked with a smaller school in the South that named their new Upper School building after the former HOS that retired the year before. This was a school and community that didn't have a tradition of selling naming rights for new buildings and other campus spaces. It's considered gauche to demand your name on something. It was explained to me that spaces that are named after someone are done at the discretion of the Board, not because of someone being told "for $250 you can name this space."

The former HOS had come in 25 years earlier and navigated the school out of a financial crisis. I was left with the impression that he essentially saved it. He did much of the leg work to raise the funds for the new Upper School building. They broke ground a year after he retired, and the Board, along with those big donors who made the building possible, decided to name the building after him. They felt it was an appropriate legacy for someone who had such an impact of the school.

Anonymous wrote:I’d rather see a building named after someone that the community wants to honor or look up to than the donor. If I donated enough for a building I would never want it named after me (and currently all my donations are “anonymous” as I hate this self-aggrandising aspect of philanthropy)

Anonymous wrote:Recognizing a parent donor in such a visible way gives the impression that some families have more influence or status than others.

By keeping naming rights neutral or reserved for historical, educational, or broader community figures, I personally feel that the school can foster a more unified and inclusive environment.

If the actual donor isn’t complaining, why not…