in tnose six montns, tne board through its representatives

in tnose six montns, tne board through its representatives let it be known that it was “politically correct” to bash Mrs. Lynn. The bash, ing continues in the spate of articles in Fauquier, Warren and Rappahannock county newspapers. These articles are timed, I believe, to sway public opinion as the July 1 eviction approaches. The personal, professional and financial ruin of Mrs. Lynn seems to have become an obsession with those who one year ago sang her praises and who today unconscionably invoke Bill Lynn’s name.

The board in its choice of president, indeed in the very manner of selection, betrays a lack of awareness and interest in Wakefield’s history and philosophy. I submit that willful ignorance is a strange stance for a group supposedly devoted to promoting Wakefield’s educational alternative. Why haven’t Dr. Saunders and the board been more curious about the history and philosophy of the school? Why have they been so anxious to remove from the scene those who know the school most intimately?

In offering the faculty a contract that states that we may be dismissed “for any reason” with two weeks’ notice, the board shows a disdain, public protestations to the contrary, for the teachers. A faculty petition to include a grievance procedure was rejected. The grievance procedure issue has been addressed, but not resolved, in the past two weeks with a stacked faculty committee appointed by Dr. Saunders.

Dr. Saunders and the board say that the curriculum at Wakefield has not changed, but that assertion hinges on the definition of curriculum. If one means by curriculum the published description of the course of studies, then there have been no changes; in fact, there have been clarifications. There is no doubt, however, to an insider that there has been an erosion of the curriculum if by curriculum one means the course of studies in its implementation: In the required eight