Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is extremely Competent a d well liked by both students and teachers.

However, we should not let cult of personality color more complex issues such as the current DEI culture wars.

The following author raises interesting conflict of interest issues. I do think DEI is really important work but that does not justify excessive profiteering and brand name monopolizing of DEI work and approaches in schools.


https://freebeacon.com/?p=1506132

This is so quaint. The Free Beacon is nothing but a click bait site.

It’s interesting that Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and so many other “conservatives” had no problem with him when he was a leader at SAES. Obviously he is able to work with a lot of different people, from different walks of life. Isn’t that what we want in school administrators?

Umm what? The Beacon may not be what I usually read but we need different points of view. The author of this article was valedictorian at St Andrew’s ES and educated at Yale. Please argue on the substance of the article and not on stereotypes.

Also Rodney was head of MS at SAES not head of entire school as he is now at SSFS. As I said, he is extremely competent and well liked / that is not the issue here. The issue is profiteering and brand name Monopolization in the culture wars around DEI. I think DEI work is really important but I am not comfortable with it being monetized in this way.

The article fabricates a conspiracy where there is none. Schools hire consultants who have a positive track record related to the

topic they want to address. It is not a "monopoly" to avoid hiring people who deny the existence of the issue. It is not "profiteering" for a consultant to charge for his time and expertise.

You don't have to agree with the decision of a publication to do a story on a particular topic, but you should not misrepresent its content either.

The Beacon story cited in this thread does not allege a "conspiracy" and there is absolutely no reason to think the author had any axe to grind. There are legitimate concerns about how DEI efforts are being undertaken at independent schools that the Beacon has covered which others have ignored. The article OP posted originally was not by the Beacon. It was by a different author from the Daily Mail in the UK, and it sensationalized the notion of a "cartel." There was an earlier Beacon story (the one in this thread is actually just a follow up) that described in detail the very close relationship between certain DEI consulting groups and the NAIS accreditation practices that may fuel a sense at some independent schools that they can't do enough DEI work in order to score well when they are reviewed for accreditation purposes. That earlier story quoted a parent who had used the term "cartel" as a short hand way to describe what that parent felt was a sense that ideological uniformity on the approach to DEI at otherwise competing private schools -- an absence of meaningful choice. The Beacon also included quotes from other parents, comments from NAIS itself, a GWU political theorist, the American Enterprise Institute and others. The focus of the earlier story was on the near monopoly influence of NAIS on accreditation of private schools, and how the same consultants who do work for many independent schools have ties to NAIS accreditation standards regarding DEI.

+1

DEI is a major issue in many elite private schools. More transparency and discussion about what DEI should Look like in different contexts is good. There is obviously not one magic formula for correcting institutional racism in schools.

Not a Beacon reader but agree it needs to be debated on the content of an important subject being widely ignored in the media.

The fact that Rodney as a GLTBQ African American is HOS is progress in itself. But wider progress will involve many different voices and affinities having a seat at the table.

What voices and affinities do you feel are absent from the table?

Openness to different approaches to addressing institutional racism. DC area has a tendency to rely too much on brand names rather than focus on the process required.

BLM addresses mostly African American experiences, which is super important … but there are many different subgroups who often report feeling excluded from mainstream society - Native American Indians, Asians, first generation immigrants from regions such as Central America and Middle East, and “white” students who feel they are being overlooked and stereotyped. There is not going to be one formula that includes everyone equitably. What works in one setting won’t work in another.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is extremely Competent a d well liked by both students and teachers.

However, we should not let cult of personality color more complex issues such as the current DEI culture wars.

The following author raises interesting conflict of interest issues. I do think DEI is really important work but that does not justify excessive profiteering and brand name monopolizing of DEI work and approaches in schools.


https://freebeacon.com/?p=1506132

This is so quaint. The Free Beacon is nothing but a click bait site.

It’s interesting that Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and so many other “conservatives” had no problem with him when he was a leader at SAES. Obviously he is able to work with a lot of different people, from different walks of life. Isn’t that what we want in school administrators?

Umm what? The Beacon may not be what I usually read but we need different points of view. The author of this article was valedictorian at St Andrew’s ES and educated at Yale. Please argue on the substance of the article and not on stereotypes.

Also Rodney was head of MS at SAES not head of entire school as he is now at SSFS. As I said, he is extremely competent and well liked / that is not the issue here. The issue is profiteering and brand name Monopolization in the culture wars around DEI. I think DEI work is really important but I am not comfortable with it being monetized in this way.

The article fabricates a conspiracy where there is none. Schools hire consultants who have a positive track record related to the

topic they want to address. It is not a "monopoly" to avoid hiring people who deny the existence of the issue. It is not "profiteering" for a consultant to charge for his time and expertise.

You don't have to agree with the decision of a publication to do a story on a particular topic, but you should not misrepresent its content either.

The Beacon story cited in this thread does not allege a "conspiracy" and there is absolutely no reason to think the author had any axe to grind. There are legitimate concerns about how DEI efforts are being undertaken at independent schools that the Beacon has covered which others have ignored. The article OP posted originally was not by the Beacon. It was by a different author from the Daily Mail in the UK, and it sensationalized the notion of a "cartel." There was an earlier Beacon story (the one in this thread is actually just a follow up) that described in detail the very close relationship between certain DEI consulting groups and the NAIS accreditation practices that may fuel a sense at some independent schools that they can't do enough DEI work in order to score well when they are reviewed for accreditation purposes. That earlier story quoted a parent who had used the term "cartel" as a short hand way to describe what that parent felt was a sense that ideological uniformity on the approach to DEI at otherwise competing private schools -- an absence of meaningful choice. The Beacon also included quotes from other parents, comments from NAIS itself, a GWU political theorist, the American Enterprise Institute and others. The focus of the earlier story was on the near monopoly influence of NAIS on accreditation of private schools, and how the same consultants who do work for many independent schools have ties to NAIS accreditation standards regarding DEI.

+1

DEI is a major issue in many elite private schools. More transparency and discussion about what DEI should Look like in different contexts is good. There is obviously not one magic formula for correcting institutional racism in schools.

Not a Beacon reader but agree it needs to be debated on the content of an important subject being widely ignored in the media.

The fact that Rodney as a GLTBQ African American is HOS is progress in itself. But wider progress will involve many different voices and affinities having a seat at the table.

What voices and affinities do you feel are absent from the table?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is extremely Competent a d well liked by both students and teachers.

However, we should not let cult of personality color more complex issues such as the current DEI culture wars.

The following author raises interesting conflict of interest issues. I do think DEI is really important work but that does not justify excessive profiteering and brand name monopolizing of DEI work and approaches in schools.


https://freebeacon.com/?p=1506132

This is so quaint. The Free Beacon is nothing but a click bait site.

It’s interesting that Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and so many other “conservatives” had no problem with him when he was a leader at SAES. Obviously he is able to work with a lot of different people, from different walks of life. Isn’t that what we want in school administrators?

Umm what? The Beacon may not be what I usually read but we need different points of view. The author of this article was valedictorian at St Andrew’s ES and educated at Yale. Please argue on the substance of the article and not on stereotypes.

Also Rodney was head of MS at SAES not head of entire school as he is now at SSFS. As I said, he is extremely competent and well liked / that is not the issue here. The issue is profiteering and brand name Monopolization in the culture wars around DEI. I think DEI work is really important but I am not comfortable with it being monetized in this way.

The article fabricates a conspiracy where there is none. Schools hire consultants who have a positive track record related to the

topic they want to address. It is not a "monopoly" to avoid hiring people who deny the existence of the issue. It is not "profiteering" for a consultant to charge for his time and expertise.

You don't have to agree with the decision of a publication to do a story on a particular topic, but you should not misrepresent its content either.

The Beacon story cited in this thread does not allege a "conspiracy" and there is absolutely no reason to think the author had any axe to grind. There are legitimate concerns about how DEI efforts are being undertaken at independent schools that the Beacon has covered which others have ignored. The article OP posted originally was not by the Beacon. It was by a different author from the Daily Mail in the UK, and it sensationalized the notion of a "cartel." There was an earlier Beacon story (the one in this thread is actually just a follow up) that described in detail the very close relationship between certain DEI consulting groups and the NAIS accreditation practices that may fuel a sense at some independent schools that they can't do enough DEI work in order to score well when they are reviewed for accreditation purposes. That earlier story quoted a parent who had used the term "cartel" as a short hand way to describe what that parent felt was a sense that ideological uniformity on the approach to DEI at otherwise competing private schools -- an absence of meaningful choice. The Beacon also included quotes from other parents, comments from NAIS itself, a GWU political theorist, the American Enterprise Institute and others. The focus of the earlier story was on the near monopoly influence of NAIS on accreditation of private schools, and how the same consultants who do work for many independent schools have ties to NAIS accreditation standards regarding DEI.

+1

DEI is a major issue in many elite private schools. More transparency and discussion about what DEI should Look like in different contexts is good. There is obviously not one magic formula for correcting institutional racism in schools.

Not a Beacon reader but agree it needs to be debated on the content of an important subject being widely ignored in the media.

The fact that Rodney as a GLTBQ African American is HOS is progress in itself. But wider progress will involve many different voices and affinities having a seat at the table.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is extremely Competent a d well liked by both students and teachers.

However, we should not let cult of personality color more complex issues such as the current DEI culture wars.

The following author raises interesting conflict of interest issues. I do think DEI is really important work but that does not justify excessive profiteering and brand name monopolizing of DEI work and approaches in schools.


https://freebeacon.com/?p=1506132

This is so quaint. The Free Beacon is nothing but a click bait site.

It’s interesting that Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and so many other “conservatives” had no problem with him when he was a leader at SAES. Obviously he is able to work with a lot of different people, from different walks of life. Isn’t that what we want in school administrators?

Umm what? The Beacon may not be what I usually read but we need different points of view. The author of this article was valedictorian at St Andrew’s ES and educated at Yale. Please argue on the substance of the article and not on stereotypes.

Also Rodney was head of MS at SAES not head of entire school as he is now at SSFS. As I said, he is extremely competent and well liked / that is not the issue here. The issue is profiteering and brand name Monopolization in the culture wars around DEI. I think DEI work is really important but I am not comfortable with it being monetized in this way.

The article fabricates a conspiracy where there is none. Schools hire consultants who have a positive track record related to the

topic they want to address. It is not a "monopoly" to avoid hiring people who deny the existence of the issue. It is not "profiteering" for a consultant to charge for his time and expertise.

You don't have to agree with the decision of a publication to do a story on a particular topic, but you should not misrepresent its content either.

The Beacon story cited in this thread does not allege a "conspiracy" and there is absolutely no reason to think the author had any axe to grind. There are legitimate concerns about how DEI efforts are being undertaken at independent schools that the Beacon has covered which others have ignored. The article OP posted originally was not by the Beacon. It was by a different author from the Daily Mail in the UK, and it sensationalized the notion of a "cartel." There was an earlier Beacon story (the one in this thread is actually just a follow up) that described in detail the very close relationship between certain DEI consulting groups and the NAIS accreditation practices that may fuel a sense at some independent schools that they can't do enough DEI work in order to score well when they are reviewed for accreditation purposes. That earlier story quoted a parent who had used the term "cartel" as a short hand way to describe what that parent felt was a sense that ideological uniformity on the approach to DEI at otherwise competing private schools -- an absence of meaningful choice. The Beacon also included quotes from other parents, comments from NAIS itself, a GWU political theorist, the American Enterprise Institute and others. The focus of the earlier story was on the near monopoly influence of NAIS on accreditation of private schools, and how the same consultants who do work for many independent schools have ties to NAIS accreditation standards regarding DEI.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is extremely Competent a d well liked by both students and teachers.

However, we should not let cult of personality color more complex issues such as the current DEI culture wars.

The following author raises interesting conflict of interest issues. I do think DEI is really important work but that does not justify excessive profiteering and brand name monopolizing of DEI work and approaches in schools.


https://freebeacon.com/?p=1506132

This is so quaint. The Free Beacon is nothing but a click bait site.

It’s interesting that Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and so many other “conservatives” had no problem with him when he was a leader at SAES. Obviously he is able to work with a lot of different people, from different walks of life. Isn’t that what we want in school administrators?

Umm what? The Beacon may not be what I usually read but we need different points of view. The author of this article was valedictorian at St Andrew’s ES and educated at Yale. Please argue on the substance of the article and not on stereotypes.

Also Rodney was head of MS at SAES not head of entire school as he is now at SSFS. As I said, he is extremely competent and well liked / that is not the issue here. The issue is profiteering and brand name Monopolization in the culture wars around DEI. I think DEI work is really important but I am not comfortable with it being monetized in this way.

The article fabricates a conspiracy where there is none. Schools hire consultants who have a positive track record related to the

topic they want to address. It is not a "monopoly" to avoid hiring people who deny the existence of the issue. It is not "profiteering" for a consultant to charge for his time and expertise.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with 6:40. By analogy, St. Andrew's has a very successful program called the Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning (CTTL). When it started up, there was talk of spinning it off to be a separate entity and the HOS would either run it or at least be a key board member of it. At that time, the SAES board saw the potential for a conflict of interest, and kept it under the control of SAES.

Of course, if SSFS's board decided that their fine with Glasgow continuing his other activities when they extended the offer, that is their choice.

Anonymous wrote: NP here. I wish Rodney Glasgow all the best at SSFS. But his apparent conflicts of interest noted in the article are patent and no school should put up with them. If I were a member of the SSFS board, I would ask him to divest himself of his consulting interests if he hasn’t already.

There are different approaches to running diversity programming, and DEI consultants who have paid involvement in such things when they serve also on a school faculty/administratioin likely are influenced by outside engagements in their approach to school issues. Even if not, such dueling financial and reputational activities certainly create the appearance of conflict of interest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is extremely Competent a d well liked by both students and teachers.

However, we should not let cult of personality color more complex issues such as the current DEI culture wars.

The following author raises interesting conflict of interest issues. I do think DEI is really important work but that does not justify excessive profiteering and brand name monopolizing of DEI work and approaches in schools.


https://freebeacon.com/?p=1506132

This is so quaint. The Free Beacon is nothing but a click bait site.

It’s interesting that Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and so many other “conservatives” had no problem with him when he was a leader at SAES. Obviously he is able to work with a lot of different people, from different walks of life. Isn’t that what we want in school administrators?

Umm what? The Beacon may not be what I usually read but we need different points of view. The author of this article was valedictorian at St Andrew’s ES and educated at Yale. Please argue on the substance of the article and not on stereotypes.

Also Rodney was head of MS at SAES not head of entire school as he is now at SSFS. As I said, he is extremely competent and well liked / that is not the issue here. The issue is profiteering and brand name Monopolization in the culture wars around DEI. I think DEI work is really important but I am not comfortable with it being monetized in this way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is extremely Competent a d well liked by both students and teachers.

However, we should not let cult of personality color more complex issues such as the current DEI culture wars.

The following author raises interesting conflict of interest issues. I do think DEI is really important work but that does not justify excessive profiteering and brand name monopolizing of DEI work and approaches in schools.


https://freebeacon.com/?p=1506132

This is so quaint. The Free Beacon is nothing but a click bait site.

It’s interesting that Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and so many other “conservatives” had no problem with him when he was a leader at SAES. Obviously he is able to work with a lot of different people, from different walks of life. Isn’t that what we want in school administrators?

Umm what? The Beacon may not be what I usually read but we need different points of view. The author of this article was valedictorian at St Andrew’s ES and educated at Yale. Please argue on the substance of the article and not on stereotypes.

Also Rodney was head of MS at SAES not head of entire school as he is now at SSFS. As I said, he is extremely competent and well liked / that is not the issue here. The issue is profiteering and brand name Monopolization in the culture wars around DEI. I think DEI work is really important but I am not comfortable with it being monetized in this way.

The Beacon is a rag.

This is just troll level type commentary: please comment on the substance of the arguments put forward.