Sidwell tuition increase

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dispelling several myths perpetrated on this forum:

5. The majority of FA dollars go to families making more than $100k, with a significant portion going to families with incomes above $200k.
6. The majority of FA dollars go to residents of the suburban counties and not the district itself.

Ok. So Here is the problem and solution. The school should decrease FA to this group who making more than $100k/$200k, and admit more students who can full pay, thus decrease the need to increase tuition to current families. Hardly to see how could those above 100k / 200k families ( since it is a Large portion) all bring something unique to the school. Those students who were merely missed the admission “standard” but can full pay willl succeed at Sidwell, and likely will be more successful than those $100k/$200k FA recipients.

Others are complaining about the middle class being "hollowed out". Please help us to reconcile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dispelling several myths perpetrated on this forum:

1. Sidwell's tuition is the same as the other independent schools referenced in this thread. In many of the previous years, its increases have been below other privates. Before rushing to judgment on gouging, let's see what that others do under the circumstances.
2. Tuition increases have nothing to do with GDP or the stock market. They have everything to do with cost. The starting point for increase in cost is CPI. Many costs of operating a school have increased at significantly faster than CPI in the recent past, with benefits like healthcare being the prime example.
3. Until such time as parents / schools are willing to break from the orthodoxy of low student:teacher ratio, the cost of providing a private school education is necessarily going to increase at a faster rate than broader inflation indexes. This is because inflation indexes have a built-in productivity deflator (or as much as 1%) that keeps costs from rising as fast as they otherwise would.
4. Administrative salary increases have lagged increases in teacher pay, despite what is represented on this board.
5. The majority of FA dollars go to families making more than $100k, with a significant portion going to families with incomes above $200k.
6. The majority of FA dollars go to residents of the suburban counties and not the district itself.
7. The comments made on this particular board are exactly the same as the ones made in each of the previous 15 years. Nothing new here. Oddly, with each person who throws up his or her hands, broadcasting that they have given up and made a different choice, there seems to be another family stepping in.

The old tropes passed out.

Please -- look at the instance facilities build out. This is a cost bubble par excellence, and it's not driven by healthcare premiums -- why don't you play around with some numbers and dispel your own myth.

And yet you say nothing...

The great thing about the "health care" line is the implicit shaming of critics -- do you want to take away your teachers' healthcare?

Meanwhile, the administration builds and builds!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dispelling several myths perpetrated on this forum:

5. The majority of FA dollars go to families making more than $100k, with a significant portion going to families with incomes above $200k.
6. The majority of FA dollars go to residents of the suburban counties and not the district itself.

Ok. So Here is the problem and solution. The school should decrease FA to this group who making more than $100k/$200k, and admit more students who can full pay, thus decrease the need to increase tuition to current families. Hardly to see how could those above 100k / 200k families ( since it is a Large portion) all bring something unique to the school. Those students who were merely missed the admission “standard” but can full pay willl succeed at Sidwell, and likely will be more successful than those $100k/$200k FA recipients.

Others are complaining about the middle class being "hollowed out". Please help us to reconcile.

“Middle class being hollowed out” in this context are those families who can’t afford the constant increase in tuition. If less FA, then less increase in tuition, and more “middle class” ( DMV standard middle class) families can afford the education of Sidwell without the need to require FA, and decrease the burden of current families who are struggling with the increase in tuition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dispelling several myths perpetrated on this forum:

5. The majority of FA dollars go to families making more than $100k, with a significant portion going to families with incomes above $200k.
6. The majority of FA dollars go to residents of the suburban counties and not the district itself.

Ok. So Here is the problem and solution. The school should decrease FA to this group who making more than $100k/$200k, and admit more students who can full pay, thus decrease the need to increase tuition to current families. Hardly to see how could those above 100k / 200k families ( since it is a Large portion) all bring something unique to the school. Those students who were merely missed the admission “standard” but can full pay willl succeed at Sidwell, and likely will be more successful than those $100k/$200k FA recipients.

Ha! I love this! Let schools with strong educational reputations just serve the wealthy. Screw that long tradition of merit as a factor. Let's just go back to the days of finishing schools and gentleman's c's. If your parents were not craven enough to be Big Law partners, then you can accept mediocrity in all things.

[Anonymous]

New building doesn't affect tuition. It's funded by donors to the capital campaign, not through tuition. If anything, it can help keep ongoing annual costs in check, because newer buildings requires less ongoing maintenance than older buildings, and there may well be some cost efficiencies from a consolidated campus.

Some on here seem determined to believe that this decision is an injustice being deliberately perpetrated against them or people like them. It really isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New building doesn't affect tuition. It's funded by donors to the capital campaign, not through tuition. If anything, it can help keep ongoing annual costs in check, because newer buildings requires less ongoing maintenance than older buildings, and there may well be some cost efficiencies from a consolidated campus.

Some on here seem determined to believe that this decision is an injustice being deliberately perpetrated against them or people like them. It really isn't.

Yes, I keep telling DH we can save money by building a new addition onto our home.

I don't really care at the end of the day. I don't like the message sent to the kids -- because it is the message -- that any amount on their "education" is OK. Responsible stewardship and allocation of resources -- well, excuse me but I don't think that is the message here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dispelling several myths perpetrated on this forum:

5. The majority of FA dollars go to families making more than $100k, with a significant portion going to families with incomes above $200k.
6. The majority of FA dollars go to residents of the suburban counties and not the district itself.

Ok. So Here is the problem and solution. The school should decrease FA to this group who making more than $100k/$200k, and admit more students who can full pay, thus decrease the need to increase tuition to current families. Hardly to see how could those above 100k / 200k families ( since it is a Large portion) all bring something unique to the school. Those students who were merely missed the admission “standard” but can full pay willl succeed at Sidwell, and likely will be more successful than those $100k/$200k FA recipients.

Ha! I love this! Let schools with strong educational reputations just serve the wealthy. Screw that long tradition of merit as a factor. Let's just go back to the days of finishing schools and gentleman's c's. If your parents were not craven enough to be Big Law partners, then you can accept mediocrity in all things.

No one is suggesting no FA. The suggestion is to cut FA budget. For example, Decreasing the FA budget from 7 million to 5.5 million will almost eliminate all need to increase the 3.75% increase. Besides, what is your evidence that students on FA will receive less Cs than students who merely missed the admission “standard” (which is subjective to a certain degree) but can full pay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dispelling several myths perpetrated on this forum:

5. The majority of FA dollars go to families making more than $100k, with a significant portion going to families with incomes above $200k.
6. The majority of FA dollars go to residents of the suburban counties and not the district itself.

Ok. So Here is the problem and solution. The school should decrease FA to this group who making more than $100k/$200k, and admit more students who can full pay, thus decrease the need to increase tuition to current families. Hardly to see how could those above 100k / 200k families ( since it is a Large portion) all bring something unique to the school. Those students who were merely missed the admission “standard” but can full pay willl succeed at Sidwell, and likely will be more successful than those $100k/$200k FA recipients.

Ha! I love this! Let schools with strong educational reputations just serve the wealthy. Screw that long tradition of merit as a factor. Let's just go back to the days of finishing schools and gentleman's c's. If your parents were not craven enough to be Big Law partners, then you can accept mediocrity in all things.

If 20% of current families fall into the braket of struggling to pay full tuition, the increase in tuition makes them leave from the school. If the HHi of 300k is the cut off for affordable or not, and 200K is the cut off for being eligible for FA. It is also not fair for kids in the 200-300K families. Eventually, the cut off for FA will go up to $300K, then the 20% come back to apply for FA.

[Anonymous]

What is needed is for some of the Sidwell donor class to take a contrary stance.

Will they lead, or leave middle class Sidwell parents in the dust?

Time will tell.

[Anonymous]

A good rule of thumb for private school is that you can afford it if you can save an amount in private brokerages equal to what you pay in tuition. If you’re sending one child to sidwell you should be able to contribute at least 45k a year to savings/investments outside of retirement. If not, you can’t afford it

Interesting and logical rule of thumb. Does the $45K contribution outside of retirement include 529s/college savings or is it in addition to that?

[Anonymous]

For the 7M in FA, how much of that, in percentage, goes to academic high achievers and how much of that goes to athletic recruit? For athletic recruit, does most of that money go to football, soccer and lacrosse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the 7M in FA, how much of that, in percentage, goes to academic high achievers and how much of that goes to athletic recruit? For athletic recruit, does most of that money go to football, soccer and lacrosse?

How much of the $7 million for FA actually comes from tuition dollars? Everyone assumes that's where it all comes from while in reality it's likely heavily funded by a draw from the endowment that has been earmarked for just this purpose as well as ongoing donations that are restricted for FA. It's the same thing for new building costs -- by and large they are not getting covered through tuition. Without seeing the full Sidwell budget laid out with all of the revenue sources accounted for, you are missing a lot of important information and shouldn't assume that reducing FA or foregoing new construction would have much impact on tuition.

[Anonymous]

12:16, you may be correct. But at the end of the day it is a values decision to raise tuition at a rate that will exceed $50k in just 5 years, as demonstrated up-thread. That is why folks are concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the 7M in FA, how much of that, in percentage, goes to academic high achievers and how much of that goes to athletic recruit? For athletic recruit, does most of that money go to football, soccer and lacrosse?

How much of the $7 million for FA actually comes from tuition dollars? Everyone assumes that's where it all comes from while in reality it's likely heavily funded by a draw from the endowment that has been earmarked for just this purpose as well as ongoing donations that are restricted for FA. It's the same thing for new building costs -- by and large they are not getting covered through tuition. Without seeing the full Sidwell budget laid out with all of the revenue sources accounted for, you are missing a lot of important information and shouldn't assume that reducing FA or foregoing new construction would have much impact on tuition.

To solve the money issue, you only have what is in (revenue) and what is out (cost). The board cannot control how much people are willing to donate. All they can control is either increasing tuition ( which you must pay if you want to stay) or decreasing cost. If many current families cannot afford the continued increase in tuition, why giving out such a large FA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A good rule of thumb for private school is that you can afford it if you can save an amount in private brokerages equal to what you pay in tuition. If you’re sending one child to sidwell you should be able to contribute at least 45k a year to savings/investments outside of retirement. If not, you can’t afford it

Interesting and logical rule of thumb. Does the $45K contribution outside of retirement include 529s/college savings or is it in addition to that?

In addition.