No Financial Aid if One parent is not working?

[Anonymous]

I think we all know and believe that raising our children is of the highest priority and respected by all posters.

As I am trying to think like a school organization, you have to consider the pitfalls and complications of schools who award financial aid to a parent who is qualified to earn an income and chooses to stay home. The school has to think that if they give money to this situation, how many other families will want to do the same thing?

In other words, I don't think it is an issue of choosing priorities, it is a matter of practicality and limited funds.

[Anonymous]

OP - As former SAHM I feel for you - the reality of private school is that it requires all sorts of lifestyle changes for many of us. In my family's case, we really worried that 2 kids for 12 years each would be a stretch - so, after the first year I went back to work p/t as a consultant. I don't exactly love my job, - but it is flexible, pay is decent for 20 hours/week, and I'm able to make it to the pick up line each day. On the flip side, I have plenty of friends who didn't want to go back to work and they are going public and seem very happy with the decision. Good luck...

[Anonymous]

One difference between being a SAHM and working in a day care or elementary school is that some of us have to work. It's not a choice. I too have been a SAHM & it emptied my bank account. Choice over. In fact, I believe it is invaluable for children to have the benefit of their moms (or dad) at an early age, and commend you for making the choice to give your time and attention to your children. Also, glad to know all lawyers consider the good they can do with their training and not just go for the top dollars.

But those of us who have chosen other demanding jobs with lower earnings (like teaching) will have a life time of modest wages and tight budgets. We earn just enough to pay the tuition, and honestly, I too would rather see that money going to a family who will never have that potential for increased income in this generation.

[Anonymous]

OP here. By your reasoning, if you have "earning potential" you shouldn't be able to stay home to take care of your small children.

The FA equation will only apply the earning potential to you if you have school-aged children. It doesn't start until your youngest is in school. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect someone, who is able, to go to work when their kids are all in school each day. It's not a choice everyone makes, and that is also fine. But, I don't think the school should be involved in subsidizing your decision.

[Anonymous]

I don't get this:

You WERE a lawyer. You decided to stay home. You probably knew you'd be sending your kid to private.

WHY didn't you and your husband, who makes a good salary, squirrel away some of that money while you were working?

When I left teaching (yes, a "poor" profession), I saved enough to put my first through 4 years of school. I am working again, and part of my salary is being invested so that my son can attend his sister's school.

And no, my husband is not a lawyer; he's also an educator.

Where are your priorities?

I agree with 18:34.

[Anonymous]

I hate my job - I work with people I don't like and for a agency that I could care less about. Why do I work? So that I will be able to afford to send my children to private HS and the college of their choice.

I wish I did not have to work at this job, and I wish I could send my children to Private Elementary as I would not need to bust my but supplementing DCPS. But my husband and I sat down and looked at finances and it is not in the cards.

We do not live beyond our means - I drive a '99 car, my husband a '04. And I do not expect others to finance my children's education (well feel free to kick in to college). Private Elementary and High School is a choice.

[Anonymous]

OP, I'm a SAHM and I realize that private school is a luxury and not a necessity. In this high-cost D.C. metropolitan area, most families cannot afford to send their kids to private schools, unless both parents are working. There area a lot of parents who sacrifice, scrimp and save to pay for private school. Why should you get preferential treatment?

If you want to send your child to private school and you can afford it, then go for it. But if you can't and you are not willing to go back to work to make the extra income, then send them to public schools. The choice is up to you.

[Anonymous]

I would complain to the school if I thought FA was being distributed to parents such as yourself - please understand that you are not entitled to expect the many hard working parents such as myself to finance your lifestyle. I hope you get this - I'm going to assume that you made your post without thinking things through.

[Anonymous]

Privates are not accepting that many FA kids anymore.
The FA is going to existing students, ones who did not need it when they applied, and now do.
Endowments have run thin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm a SAHM and I realize that private school is a luxury and not a necessity. In this high-cost D.C. metropolitan area, most families cannot afford to send their kids to private schools, unless both parents are working. There area a lot of parents who sacrifice, scrimp and save to pay for private school. Why should you get preferential treatment?

If you want to send your child to private school and you can afford it, then go for it. But if you can't and you are not willing to go back to work to make the extra income, then send them to public schools. The choice is up to you.

I agree with this. I don't think the analogy of what-if-I-were-a-teacher applies, because society needs all kinds of workers, and the fact is that some professions pay more than others. OP, you are not a teacher; you are a lawyer by training. If you were a teacher who had opted to stay home, then I would think the FA committee would factor in your foregone teacher's salary.

I do feel your pain, with a twist: I am in a highly-paid profession. My spouse, a teacher at one of the Big Three, and I submitted an application to the school for our child to attend. Child was admitted, but no tuition waiver or reduction of any kind, and we were not given any aid, because I make too much money (but really, I assure you, not enough to pay for this school). We learned that even if I took some time off from work, or went part-time, my previous income would have been factored into the decision. My spouse had worked at this school for many, many years. That decision stung very badly. Probably much more than your situation does (since you have no family tie, presumably, to any of these schools). Our child goes to public school.

If you want to send your child, you'll need to make some sacrifices of some kind. That's the bottom line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A PP to whom OP responded here.

My priorities are just fine, and nothing in my post (nor in my life) would indicate that I'm opposed to SAHM-dom. As I've mentioned, I've been a SAHM myself, and may be a SAHM again. Stay at home all you want, I could not care less. I just don't want to help pay for your kid to go to private school. As I mentioned, I understand that you may think that my view is unfair since others have self-selected not to have earning potential, and I think that that's true to a limited extent. But that's really arguing that you should be able to take advantage of the system because some other people do as well.

To be clear, I think it both good for schools, and simply the right thing to do, to provide aid for those who do not have other reasonable alternatives for paying tuiition. I also think it's a good thing for a school to attempt to have families whose parents are engaged in different types of professions or who otherwise have varied interests (whoch can sometimes be reflected in lower compensation) that can add to the life of the school. Absent unusual circumstances that you haven't disclosed, though, I really don't think that DC private schools need to be dipping into financial aid funds to subsidize a SAHM lawyer's choice to stay home. I have nothing against your wanting to stay home, I just don't want to pay for it.

I agree completely. I am happy to donate to our school but strongly prefer that financial aid be reserved for a situation where both parents work (or for single parents) and do not earn enough to pay, or for families who ordinarily based on all adults working could afford private school but have other special circumstances (sibling with special needs, etc.). I don't want financial aid to go to people who made choices that I did not make because doing so would have meant I could not afford school. like having 4 kids, or staying at home..... or buying a larger home.

[Anonymous]

If you want to send your child, you'll need to make some sacrifices of some kind. That's the bottom line.

Ditto this. Our children are not yet elementary school aged but all the friends of ours who have a SAHM with kid(s) at the big 3 (or really any DC area private) scrimp and save for the tuition unless they happen to be of the "husband is a partner in a big law firm" variety. I'm talking ~200K incomes with 15 year old cars, one modest vacation a year, no eating out etc. They are cutting back in almost EVERY SINGLE area to have a parent at home and a child in private school. I find it hard to take that you want the private school experience without the sacrifice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I sympathize, I'm also a lawyer, likely facing many of the same issues OP and most others are. While I'm happy that my tuition and donation dollars will help those who are not reasonably able to afford private school, I really don't want my dollars spent subsidizing a SAHM lawyer. Really, is this what financial aid is for, to enable someone perfectly capable to working in the government (or, presumably in the private sector) to choose not to so that her academic and professional peers can help pay for her kids to go top school? I'm not at all opposed to SAHMs, and have been one off and on, but once you have an earning potential, I think it's really hard to ask for hand-outs. While this may not be fair given that lots of SAHMS don't have earning potential because they either went into professions that don't pay much by choice (often less than childcare costs) or because they simply blew off school, it really gets me that another lawyer would be asking for others (whether donors or current parents) to pay for this. Aid is for people in need, not in want.

OP here. By your reasoning, if you have "earning potential" you shouldn't be able to stay home to take care of your small children. That's absurd, and frankly, a sad comment on priorities. And, how is my choice to stay home for awhile rather than practice law any different from someone else's choice to become a teacher or or work at a nonprofit or in the public sector in jobs that are not high-paying? By your reasoning, they're not maximizing their earning potential either. But I would guess you'd have no problem (nor would I) with their applying for financial aid. Perhaps you just have an issue with educated women choosing to stay home. At any rate, thanks for your comment.

Be careful there OP - sort of sounds like you're arguing that the "right" choice or "right" priority is for a mom to stay home. I disagree. I think it's the right choice for some families. But many mom's I know would go stir crazy if they stayed home, and by working, they are able to provide their children with exceptional resources and experiences that they otherwise could not. I know lots of working moms who have the unique ability to really focus and maximize the time they have each day with their children - ie they get more quality time out of 4 hours than a SAHM does out of 12. Frankly, many SAHM's I know are looking for every chance to get a little time away from the kids during the day because they are so exasperated (understandably so, it's a tough job being with small kids for 12-15 hours).

Point being that different families have different needs - and the decision to stay home or work is an individual one. For our family, we've both worked and had a nanny - but our kids are happy and thriving, accepted into all of the Big 5 schools we applied to, and the time we spend together is cherished by all. We don't for one second think our relationship with our kids would be any stronger if one of us stayed home.

[Anonymous]

I agree with all the PP's who feel that OP should not be entitled to financial aid. I'm a lawyer mom, who used to work in public interest law -- I gave up a high paying job in a big firm to do work that I loved. When my kids were older, I went back to a big firm (for more money, and, ironically fewer hours) so that we could send our children to private school. Private school is a luxury. It's one thing if a family has limited earning capacity/potential -- then I'd certainly be in favor of aid. But a lawyer mom who wants to stay home? Sorry; you make your choices, but don't expect us to subsidize them.

[Anonymous]

Financial aid is a limited resource and paid for by other families. I also would not want my donation going toward subsidizing a SAHM lawyer's choice to stay home. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't stay home or that you are not very busy while you are at home, its just that others should not have to fund it for you. I know alot of families who work two incomes so that they can afford to save for college and fund private school. It doesnot seem fair that you get to stay home and have someone else pay while they have to work.

The idea behind financial aid is also to provide more economic diversity. A two income family renting a condo for example have no more options to tap into finance the private education. A SAHM with a high earning potential living in a very expensive house has two options that the first family does not, go back to work or take out a second mortgage or downsize the house to finance the education. These options may significantly change the quality of your lifestyle and affect your family but these are the conditions that the first family are already in.