<p>I recently found out that the head of Northfield Mount Hermon, Tom Sturtevant, resigned, quite suddenly in May. The official announcement provided very little information. Sturtevant said that “I look forward to creating a space in my life for serious reflection, writing and time with my family.” I hope everything is OK with both Mr. Sturtevant and the school. Does anyone have additional information? Thanks.</p>
<p>The information isn’t well known. The now Interim Head Charlie Tierney asked the community to be polite and not question. I have heard rumors around, but I’m not sure I’m at liberty to say them here.</p>
<p>Sturtevant’s resignation shouldn’t reflect poorly on NMH. He made poor personal decisions and had to leave. NMH is in very good hands with Tierney now!</p>
<p>NMHStudent, any specifics?</p>
<p>NMHstudent, I don’t think people are now thinking poorly of NMH-I’m sure it is a wonderful school. One person’s actions, whether they be good or bad, do not reflect the actions of an entire school. People are genuinely curious.</p>
<p>Gee, if you made a poor decision in your personal life (and you surely will), would you like it being bandied about on Internet chat boards? How about a little compassion instead?</p>
<p>Well, Anthony Wiener made a poor decision in his personal life. Look what happened to him. ""High stake people"s personal decisions that have big impact are inevitably scrutinized by the public. Tough reality.</p>
<p>I started this thread off, so I thought I should add something. To me a key issue here is transparency v. opaqueness. If the head of NMH did something he regretted but that act did not impact the school, why should he have to resign? On the other hand, if he did something that impacted negatively on the school, why shouldn’t the larger community know about it? Aren’t we supposedly in the age of transparency? I can understand why the people who hired the head of school want this issue to go away, don’t they always? (Think the cover-up in the Catholic church, not that this is same situation.) One advantage of the Internet is that it has lead to a transparency which, on balance, I think has been good. Certainly the board of trustees has been as closed-mouth as possible. I hope this means that whatever the head did, it did not negatively impact on the school. But in that case, why did he resign?</p>
<p>What you label as transparency might, in many cases, also be labeled as vicious sensationalism. Does that have a higher moral value than compassion? Or is that now irrelevant?</p>
<p>@JimC: I think it’s worth noting that the head of school is inherently a role model of sorts for students who are not adults. In light of this, it’s likely that a poor personal decision would at least affect his ability to serve as a positive role model for students.</p>
<p>^^I agree. That’s very likely what has happened. If the school admistration chose to keep it a secrete, and the school itself is marginalized enough in the bigger society that the media is not pursuing the news, then I guess we’ll never know what was really going on, except rumors from insiders. It is natural for people who are associated with or interested in exploring BS to want to know what the headmaster did in relation to his resignation. While a headmaster of a private school is not a high profile public figure, in this industry he is s high power person whose actions have big impact and are subject to the monitoring/critiques of students, faculty and parents.</p>
<p>Andrew and kraodrawoh: I do agree that prep school administrators (especially those in the ESA) should behave as role models. However, since Sturtevant’s behavior was kept private and unbeknownst to students (and apparently still so…), it did not affect his ability to serve as a positive role model. Of course the School chose to keep it private. Why draw unnecessary, negative exposure? Did DA comment when nearly the entire senior class got raided by police this year for breaking the law? It’s not in a school’s best interest to fan the flames of a controversy.</p>
<p>Andover was open about the drug ring last year and there were articles about it in the student newspaper Phillipian. Openness may allow the people involved to learn lessons from their mistakes. [url=<a href=“http://phillipian.net/node/105308]Phillipian[/url”>http://phillipian.net/node/105308]Phillipian[/url</a>]</p>
<p>If you don’t like the way NHM handles a particular situation or any other school for that matter and it troubles you, then don’t have your kid attend.</p>
<p>^^Why? I am not even sure NMH itself would say something like that or hold that attitude to prospective families who are asking about their handling of some specific incident. Do you think you are helping the school by fending off the questioning or criticisms? Are you sure they need your help in that way?</p>
<p>Why, because they don’t have to tell you if they don’t want to.</p>
<p>There’s a point beyond which research becomes gossip. If there aren’t any lawsuits looming, Ops is right. If a school choosing to respect their head’s privacy makes you uncomfortable, it’s probably not the right school for you. </p>
<p>If you’re interested in NMH, it would be a logical question to ask during the parent interview.</p>
<p>A school can do many a thing that make one uncomfortable but it can still be the best or most viable option for your child - we don’t live in a perfect world and there are so many factors to consider when making school decisions, but that doesn’t mean that no one can question the way a school handles a certain incident, or want to know what’s really going on. They certainly don’t deserve a shout like “Back off! This is how we do things. If you don’t like it, tough, we don’t need you to!”, which is essentially what ops expressed.</p>
<p>No one is shouting. You can question all you like, but basically, yes, if you don’t like their answer then don’t have your kid apply, no skin off their back. The interim President and surely the BOD have requested privacy. This is not CC Housewives so no need for the drama. The school will provide further information if they so desire. But, they don’t have to tell you anything and you don’t have to know what’s really going on, if anything.</p>
<p>What’s “have to”? If it were a “have to”, would there be such a discussion? It would all be out there. I just don’t get why you get defensive for some people wanting to know what led to the resignation of a headmaster. The school can have their decisions and others can question. I don’t care for your effort in “shutting people up”.</p>