Anonymous wrote:I heard this was also related to the kids with the nazi symbols in that presentation. Been a banner year for Sidwell.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If Sidwell did not punish the parent--who clearly must know this is unethical behavior--then there is NOTHING to stop other parents from doing the same.
I gather from the emails sent out that they don't know who did it. Thus the "we won't answer blocked numbers".
Sidwell knows the family who did it.
And what action was taken?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If Sidwell did not punish the parent--who clearly must know this is unethical behavior--then there is NOTHING to stop other parents from doing the same.
I gather from the emails sent out that they don't know who did it. Thus the "we won't answer blocked numbers".
Sidwell knows the family who did it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If Sidwell did not punish the parent--who clearly must know this is unethical behavior--then there is NOTHING to stop other parents from doing the same.
I gather from the emails sent out that they don't know who did it. Thus the "we won't answer blocked numbers".
Sidwell knows the family who did it.
This is an internal issue at Sidwell. Why discussed on these forms? Besides it was most likely a student and not a parent. What were the accusations? Did anyone even bother to see if they were true?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If Sidwell did not punish the parent--who clearly must know this is unethical behavior--then there is NOTHING to stop other parents from doing the same.
I gather from the emails sent out that they don't know who did it. Thus the "we won't answer blocked numbers".
Sidwell knows the family who did it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If Sidwell did not punish the parent--who clearly must know this is unethical behavior--then there is NOTHING to stop other parents from doing the same.
I gather from the emails sent out that they don't know who did it. Thus the "we won't answer blocked numbers".
Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but this demonstrates that the lame duck Sidwell college counseling director is a prima donna:
:'While I often arrive at the office well before 8:00 a.m., that does not mean a parent should ever be waiting for me in the vestibule, parking lot, or outside my office door," Gallagher wrote.
Experienced teachers and staff know that if a matter is urgent, a parent may stop in before school to try to have a quick word or set a later time to talk. While I agree about not lurking in the the parking lot, the rest is silly and indicates a certain stubbornness and frankly a lazy approach to engagement on the part of the writer.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This isn't surprising when you only have smart kids at a school competing for a very few number of slots per college. I don't understand the surprised reaction.
You mean rich and connected kids? There is grade inflation and SAT scores are for sale it seems. SMH
Anonymous wrote:If Sidwell did not punish the parent--who clearly must know this is unethical behavior--then there is NOTHING to stop other parents from doing the same.
Anonymous wrote:Oh, it's about personal behavior? I figured it was about application fraud, e.g. lying about extracurriculars, submitting more than one ED/EA, financial aid fraud.
Why would party photos be sent to the college counselor? Party photos of drug and alcohol use SHOULD (seriously) be sent to the dean or headmaster and the child should be called in for questioning. That's an honor code violation and can subject you to expulsion. This is why we pay big bucks for private school, we don't want our kids around low-character degenerates.