Sidwell "Fair Share" campaign

[Anonymous]

PP, that is why people who can afford the shortfall should pay it (or 2X per capita) so that all is covered -- they know they can afford it, a lot are just cheap.

[Anonymous]

I think there are many, many worthy causes out there to which one could be donating needed dollars. I support my child's school and I know that the reason a fairly large "gap" occurs is because the school offers quite a bit of scholarship assistance and has a very small endowment ... I am hoping they can build on that endowment to ease the need for such high giving in the future, but I suspect they would ask for more money regardless.

All that said, my family has only a certain amount of money available in our budget to give to worthy causes and in the scheme of things, helping (often middle class) families attend private school (in Virginia, not DC) is not nearly so pressing an issue as donating more to food banks, shelters, and so forth given the current economy.

I don't think calling people "cheap" will help increase donations. Charitable giving is a very individual, value judgment. I DO think every single family should contribute ... but if for some that contribution is $20, then they deserve a thank you just as sincerely as the ones who donate buildings.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Thanks PPs. I guess it is really up to what one is comfortable with financially. I was thinking in the 500 to 1000 range and wasn't sure if this was too small. Going beyond that would be "possible" but certainly a stretch.

[Anonymous]

I do not think that anyone should think $500 to $1000 isn't a substantial contribution to anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, if you think your private school is engaging in accounting fraud, that is one issue. And I hope you would not seek to associate with a fraudulent establishment. But if you are in a private school, you should cover the difference between your child's (or children's) tuition and what it costs to educate your child if you can at all afford it (and most of us in private school can). Another measure? Look at the class participation from the previous (or prior) year ... divide by number of people in the class ... THEN MULTIPLY BY 2. That is what you should pay if you have resources to do so, to cover some family that cannot pay. (Guess what, for most schools that is about the shortfall per year per student). This isn't about being CHEAP. This is about paying for what it actually costs to educate your child. You are choosing not to go to a public school where taxpayers cover the cost of educating your kids. In private school - you need to cover yourself, including the shortfall. I have kids in both private and public and I do this in both schools. I always pay 2X what is asked for the annual campaign PLUS all manner of other donations. So many parents are CHEAP.

The point is not that the shortfall results from an accounting fraud of some sort (because it does not), but it does represent nothing more than a "marketing" gimmick to offer/encourage/pressure parents to donate every larger amounts. Lets see. Tuition increases every year by more than inflation, the school needs more scholarship money to assist those who need it (some of whom need it mostly because tuition is increasing too much), and the school relies on increasing parent contributions and other support to make budget. Now, there is a thought. What about that other component of a budget?? Expenses!! So, my answer is if private schools demonstrated any ability to control their expenses, I would be far more receptive to contribute to the extent of any "real" shortfall. It should not cost $40, 000 a year to teach students. Sidwell is, of course, not alone in this regard. I do note that Sidwell supposedly spend $1 Million to get itself green certified.

So, I fundamentally challenge the notion that parents are cheap. The idea that parents are cheap (even those who can afford it) simply because they do not pay or contribute $40,000 a year to a private school is simply bizzare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks PPs. I guess it is really up to what one is comfortable with financially. I was thinking in the 500 to 1000 range and wasn't sure if this was too small. Going beyond that would be "possible" but certainly a stretch.

I think that would be fine. We give to Sidwell in that range, as tuition without financial aid already is a stretch.

[Anonymous]

I also am curious as to what is meant by "fair share"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also am curious as to what is meant by "fair share"?

It's a politically correct way of saying progressive tax.

[Anonymous]

I find it interesting that you would assume that parents who don't contribute are being "cheap". I would just assume that they could not afford it. And I also would assume that when they CAN afford to contribute more, they will.

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, if you think your private school is engaging in accounting fraud, that is one issue. And I hope you would not seek to associate with a fraudulent establishment. But if you are in a private school, you should cover the difference between your child's (or children's) tuition and what it costs to educate your child if you can at all afford it (and most of us in private school can). Another measure? Look at the class participation from the previous (or prior) year ... divide by number of people in the class ... THEN MULTIPLY BY 2. That is what you should pay if you have resources to do so, to cover some family that cannot pay. (Guess what, for most schools that is about the shortfall per year per student). This isn't about being CHEAP. This is about paying for what it actually costs to educate your child. You are choosing not to go to a public school where taxpayers cover the cost of educating your kids. In private school - you need to cover yourself, including the shortfall. I have kids in both private and public and I do this in both schools. I always pay 2X what is asked for the annual campaign PLUS all manner of other donations. So many parents are CHEAP.

[Anonymous]

Why doesn't Sidwell then just raise their tuition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn't Sidwell then just raise their tuition?


This is not unique to sidwell. Many privates in the area ask for contributions to cover the gap.

[Anonymous]

No, what Sidwell and the rest of the private schools need to do is to rein in their expenses, something that they have shown no ability to do so.

[Anonymous]

If there was an actual belief by a majority of the "clients" that Sidwell needed to "rein in their expenses," they -- like any other rational actor -- would do so. To the contrary, people send their kids to private schools like Sidwell for a bunch of reasons, but it is not likely high on the list that the school should operate on a tight budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there was an actual belief by a majority of the "clients" that Sidwell needed to "rein in their expenses," they -- like any other rational actor -- would do so. To the contrary, people send their kids to private schools like Sidwell for a bunch of reasons, but it is not likely high on the list that the school should operate on a tight budget.

So, you are suggesting that privates should keep increasing tuition at 4-6% a year, creating the need for more FA, which then creates the need for ever higher donations. If a private school's costs are $40K a year to teach a student, then they will be $50K in a few years. The fact is that the number of people who can afford full tuition (much more than the "real" costs) is decreasing as percentage of the DC population (even before the Great Recession). Moreover, your statement assumes that nonprofits act rationally in economic terms. Nonprofits have a long history of focusing elsewhere, which is a good thing for the most part. You do not hire a principal because he or she is good at budgets and economics. The rational actor argument carries no weight after the idiots on Wall Street (acting rationally, of course) almost took down the world economy using their fancy mathematical formulaes that they did not even understand in hindsight. Further, I would assume that we all would agree that the boards of these schools have greater duties than simply following what the masses want. Finally, so you have no issues with paying, say, $40K a year (including any "shortfall") when we all know that the school could probably cut at least 10-20% in expenses at the minimum without affecting the education. So, who is acting rationally? The fact is that privates as well as universities rely heavily on the suspension of rationality when raising money and promoting themselves. Did Sidwell really need to spend $1M to get green certified?

[Anonymous]

PP - then don't go to Sidwell. Or a University whose spending you do not like. On the one hand, you say that nonprofits cannot handle finances, yet their boards should. I think that the market desires set the price. If they raise tuition 6% next year and actually lose students (unlikely with a purported 20% admission rate), then perhaps Sidwell will be convinced to budget differently. I don't think the spending should be frivolous, but I doubt the accuracy of the "Green Certified" number. As it turns out, the info on the internet is that Sidwell spent $28 million on a total redo of half-century old buildings, and as part of that made sure that the construction and design was green-compliant and certifiable ... for three reasons : (1) future savings on energy costs... (2) to provide a model for education and environmental stewardship ... and (3) to get noticed with the first certificaton and win awards for design. Assuming reaching those objectives cost an extra $1 million -- wihch sounds like a lot standing alone -- it was actually less than 5% of the construction budget apparently, which is rather small in context. In other words, they could build with older technology and miss out on the new design and coolness of the certification and awards, for a little less money. I say BRAVO that they got the certification -- I think it is a smart, progressive, forward looking thing to do. I think they will be repaid 7 fold over the next half century. I would contribute in addition to pay tuition there gladly even if there are 6% increases per year. You may think it is dumb and not want to subsidize any of it. You don't have to send your kids there. There will be enough me's to keep them in business (and no, I don't think they are engaging in activities like some of the Wall Street shenanigans to line the pockets of individuals, but if you do, yet another reason to vote with your feet and your wallet -- or stay and get on the board yourself).