Should financial aid in private school be stricter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why we stopped donating to funds/events that raise money for financial aid. We happily give when the school is raising money for a new science lab, field trips a new bus etc. Private school is a stretch for us and we don't get any aid. It didn't sit right with us that we were supporting families with similar incomes so they could continue to go on vacations, buy nice cars or send 3/4 kids to private school.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of schools devoting a lot of effort in fundraising for financial aid, and the importance of financial to support diversity and families in need.

However, when I see the families that are using financial aid I see only upper middle class families with several children, and not even top performers.

Shouldn’t fínancial aid be stricter (let’s say truly low income households) and perhaps the brightest or athletic chidlren from middle class families.

In its current form (at least in my children’s school) the financial aid looks pretty much like a giveaway for well off parents. Does anyone observe the same pattern?

So you want your child to attend a school that only has rich kids of average to high intelligence and poor kids who are extremely smart or athletic. What could go wrong?

I want my kids to attend a school with a well rounded student body and I'm ok with donating to that cause. The MC and multiple kid UMC families round out the class. Most of them have parents who work at the school, so I'm ok with that.

Yes, and since tuition is now $57k at these schools, you would only be able to have 2 aid kids per grade on an aid budget of 1.5 million.

What could possibly go wrong in a social dynamic of 98 extremely wealthy kids per grade and 2 completely impoverished kids? Who would want to be those 2 kids?

You are assuming that nothing would go wrong with UMC kids. Why is that?

Also ask low income families if they would like to go tuition free to a high quality private school? Why do you assume they would refuse it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of defensiveness here. I’m with you OP. I’d much rather my school give scholarships to truly low income children who need a chance in life vs UMC families that want private but can’t afford it.

Most, if not everyone, would agree with this. If you don’t think your school is doing this, bring it up to your school’s board. If they don’t fix it, stop donating or start your own scholarship targeting the exact groups you want to help.

OP is nosy and making assumptions about people’s financial aid and income statuses. She probably doesn’t even donate to her school.

I only know for sure a few kids that get financial aid. All of them have parents that work at the school. These parents are definitely invested in their kids and the school. They are middle class and they wouldn't be able to afford the $80k+ to see their 2+ kids there. Some of these are our favorite teachers so offering financial aid as an employment perk is fine with me. Actually, I'd rather have this than truly low income kids whose parents are uninvolved in the school because they work 2 jobs and have alcoholism - my daughter was friends with a girl like this at our school and we very much tried to be that support system. Fast forward to highschool and the girl failed out, her mother died or liver failure, and last I heard she's the 'entrepreneur' selling drugs. Five years of financial aid wasted in my opinion.

The main issue with this post is that it makes sweeping generalizations about low-income families, reinforcing harmful stereotypes. Here are the key problems:

1. Associating Low-Income Status with Parental Neglect and Addiction
The post implies that truly low-income parents are generally uninvolved in their children’s education because they work multiple jobs and struggle with alcoholism.
While some families face hardships, not all low-income parents are uninvolved, nor do they all struggle with addiction. Many work hard to support their children’s education.

2. Suggesting That Financial Aid for Low-Income Students Is a "Waste"
The post frames financial aid as only worthwhile if the student succeeds, rather than as an opportunity for those who wouldn’t otherwise afford private school.
The idea that a student "failed out" and their mother’s death led them to selling drugs suggests a lack of empathy for systemic issues rather than recognizing the challenges some students face.

3. Favoritism Toward Middle-Class Families Over Low-Income Families
The poster prefers financial aid to go to middle-class teachers rather than low-income families, based on personal comfort with teachers.
This reinforces elitism—that financial aid should benefit those who "fit in" rather than those with the greatest financial need.

4. Insensitive Language & Judgmental Tone
Describing someone as an “entrepreneur” selling drugs trivializes their struggles.
The phrase “five years of financial aid wasted” is particularly problematic because it suggests that struggling students don’t deserve help unless they meet a certain outcome.

While concerns about school culture and parental involvement are valid, this post comes across as classist and lacking compassion. It assumes that financial aid should only go to students with stable families, ignoring that financial aid exists to give disadvantaged kids a chance, not just to reward those with ideal circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of schools devoting a lot of effort in fundraising for financial aid, and the importance of financial to support diversity and families in need.

However, when I see the families that are using financial aid I see only upper middle class families with several children, and not even top performers.

Shouldn’t fínancial aid be stricter (let’s say truly low income households) and perhaps the brightest or athletic chidlren from middle class families.

In its current form (at least in my children’s school) the financial aid looks pretty much like a giveaway for well off parents. Does anyone observe the same pattern?

So you want your child to attend a school that only has rich kids of average to high intelligence and poor kids who are extremely smart or athletic. What could go wrong?

I want my kids to attend a school with a well rounded student body and I'm ok with donating to that cause. The MC and multiple kid UMC families round out the class. Most of them have parents who work at the school, so I'm ok with that.

You are assuming that UMC children are well rounded relative to rich and poor kids. Why is that? Maybe because you are UMC?

Actually I'm UC. I assume this because I know who they select. How do I know? I'm on the committee that selects the families. There is a lot of rigor that goes into getting to know these kids and their families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a private school. They can do whatever TF they want. You don’t like it? Send your kid somewhere else. Or start your own school.

Why do some people think they get to dictate how businesses operate?

So much entitlement.

I believe that I still have a right to have an opinion?

Yes, we also have the right to tell you how naive and uninformed your stupid opinion is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of schools devoting a lot of effort in fundraising for financial aid, and the importance of financial to support diversity and families in need.

However, when I see the families that are using financial aid I see only upper middle class families with several children, and not even top performers.

Shouldn’t fínancial aid be stricter (let’s say truly low income households) and perhaps the brightest or athletic chidlren from middle class families.

In its current form (at least in my children’s school) the financial aid looks pretty much like a giveaway for well off parents. Does anyone observe the same pattern?

So you want your child to attend a school that only has rich kids of average to high intelligence and poor kids who are extremely smart or athletic. What could go wrong?

I want my kids to attend a school with a well rounded student body and I'm ok with donating to that cause. The MC and multiple kid UMC families round out the class. Most of them have parents who work at the school, so I'm ok with that.

You are assuming that UMC children are well rounded relative to rich and poor kids. Why is that? Maybe because you are UMC?

Actually I'm UC. I assume this because I know who they select. How do I know? I'm on the committee that selects the families. There is a lot of rigor that goes into getting to know these kids and their families.

No wonder there are few low income families in private schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a private school. They can do whatever TF they want. You don’t like it? Send your kid somewhere else. Or start your own school.

Why do some people think they get to dictate how businesses operate?

So much entitlement.

I believe that I still have a right to have an opinion?

Yes, we also have the right to tell you how naive and uninformed your stupid opinion is.

I am glad that I was able to read your wise and informed post.

[Anonymous]

What the OP assumes is that wealthy private school families want socioeconomic diversity. Regardless of their rhetoric, they do not. They are actively choosing against it by sending their kids to expensive schools. The schools know this and endeavour to distribute FA in a way that allows them to brag about how many families receive it without actually giving a lot to poor students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of schools devoting a lot of effort in fundraising for financial aid, and the importance of financial to support diversity and families in need.

However, when I see the families that are using financial aid I see only upper middle class families with several children, and not even top performers.

Shouldn’t fínancial aid be stricter (let’s say truly low income households) and perhaps the brightest or athletic chidlren from middle class families.

In its current form (at least in my children’s school) the financial aid looks pretty much like a giveaway for well off parents. Does anyone observe the same pattern?

So you want your child to attend a school that only has rich kids of average to high intelligence and poor kids who are extremely smart or athletic. What could go wrong?

I want my kids to attend a school with a well rounded student body and I'm ok with donating to that cause. The MC and multiple kid UMC families round out the class. Most of them have parents who work at the school, so I'm ok with that.

Yes, and since tuition is now $57k at these schools, you would only be able to have 2 aid kids per grade on an aid budget of 1.5 million.

What could possibly go wrong in a social dynamic of 98 extremely wealthy kids per grade and 2 completely impoverished kids? Who would want to be those 2 kids?

You are assuming that nothing would go wrong with UMC kids. Why is that?

Also ask low income families if they would like to go tuition free to a high quality private school? Why do you assume they would refuse it?

At the school of my youngest only partial financial aid is offered, so this would be possible.

At the other school full aid is only offered to very impoverished kids who are good at sports. Like really good at sports, most end up at ivy or some great D1 school because of their sports plus academics. I actually like this dynamic because who wouldn't want to know the next Michael Jordan before he was Michael Jordan. And yeah, everyone knows who those kids are and that they are scholarship kids. No one really cares because they are destined to be the next Usain Bolt. These kids are usually very popular, very dedicated, and very focused, i.e., the kind of friend you want your kid to have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can't you just scroll back and read last month's post on this topic? And the one from the month before and before that...?

This. OP keeps asking this question like she's going to get a different answer. Let it go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of schools devoting a lot of effort in fundraising for financial aid, and the importance of financial to support diversity and families in need.

However, when I see the families that are using financial aid I see only upper middle class families with several children, and not even top performers.

Shouldn’t fínancial aid be stricter (let’s say truly low income households) and perhaps the brightest or athletic chidlren from middle class families.

In its current form (at least in my children’s school) the financial aid looks pretty much like a giveaway for well off parents. Does anyone observe the same pattern?

So you want your child to attend a school that only has rich kids of average to high intelligence and poor kids who are extremely smart or athletic. What could go wrong?

I want my kids to attend a school with a well rounded student body and I'm ok with donating to that cause. The MC and multiple kid UMC families round out the class. Most of them have parents who work at the school, so I'm ok with that.

Yes, and since tuition is now $57k at these schools, you would only be able to have 2 aid kids per grade on an aid budget of 1.5 million.

What could possibly go wrong in a social dynamic of 98 extremely wealthy kids per grade and 2 completely impoverished kids? Who would want to be those 2 kids?

You are assuming that nothing would go wrong with UMC kids. Why is that?

Also ask low income families if they would like to go tuition free to a high quality private school? Why do you assume they would refuse it?

At the school of my youngest only partial financial aid is offered, so this would be possible.

At the other school full aid is only offered to very impoverished kids who are good at sports. Like really good at sports, most end up at ivy or some great D1 school because of their sports plus academics. I actually like this dynamic because who wouldn't want to know the next Michael Jordan before he was Michael Jordan. And yeah, everyone knows who those kids are and that they are scholarship kids. No one really cares because they are destined to be the next Usain Bolt. These kids are usually very popular, very dedicated, and very focused, i.e., the kind of friend you want your kid to have.

Thanks for sharing such a positive story of helping low income families with financial aid. Kudos to the school 👏

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't you just scroll back and read last month's post on this topic? And the one from the month before and before that...?

This. OP keeps asking this question like she's going to get a different answer. Let it go.

If it’s a repeated post don’t read it or post on the thread. You are complaining like this was a magazine subscription.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On what planet are you aware of the actual income and the assets/liabilities of other families and on what planet are you aware of everyone who applies and is granted FA?

Pro Tip: mind you own damn business. If you don’t want to give to the FA fundraisers, don’t. If you’re wealthy enough that it’s not even a consideration for you, be grateful.

I do see that there are no low income families in my kids grade. All cars are big and new and all take several vacation trips a year. Do you think they qualify as low income families? Maybe you have a different concept of low income.

I think about this sometimes and wonder who else gets aid at my kid’s school.

My car is 15 years old with dents and scratches galore. We are at 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, but the $1600 it would take to do cosmetic repairs is instead put toward things like groceries, healthcare, and other bills (e.g., tuition), month after month after month. And we don’t take vacations.

All the other parents seem to be lawyers, doctors, c-suite types… And the cars are what you’d expect. My kid mentions other kids’ vacations and families meeting up in far away places.

The school boasts a very high % of students getting aid, but knowing what I know? It’s a bit confusing. I’m not protesting the aid we’ve gotten, at all — my kid has benefited immeasurably — but it does make me wonder.

[Anonymous]

We could be that family you are describing. Quite honestly, we wouldn't send our kids to private school if we didn't get about half off (not a fancy exclusive school but an OK catholic school). Private schools are a business. They know what they are doing. They want to keep numbers up and what we pay for our daughter covers keeping her there I'm sure. She's easy, has involved parents, and doesn't need much support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of defensiveness here. I’m with you OP. I’d much rather my school give scholarships to truly low income children who need a chance in life vs UMC families that want private but can’t afford it.

Most, if not everyone, would agree with this. If you don’t think your school is doing this, bring it up to your school’s board. If they don’t fix it, stop donating or start your own scholarship targeting the exact groups you want to help.

OP is nosy and making assumptions about people’s financial aid and income statuses. She probably doesn’t even donate to her school.

I only know for sure a few kids that get financial aid. All of them have parents that work at the school. These parents are definitely invested in their kids and the school. They are middle class and they wouldn't be able to afford the $80k+ to see their 2+ kids there. Some of these are our favorite teachers so offering financial aid as an employment perk is fine with me. Actually, I'd rather have this than truly low income kids whose parents are uninvolved in the school because they work 2 jobs and have alcoholism - my daughter was friends with a girl like this at our school and we very much tried to be that support system. Fast forward to highschool and the girl failed out, her mother died or liver failure, and last I heard she's the 'entrepreneur' selling drugs. Five years of financial aid wasted in my opinion.

The main issue with this post is that it makes sweeping generalizations about low-income families, reinforcing harmful stereotypes. Here are the key problems:

1. Associating Low-Income Status with Parental Neglect and Addiction
The post implies that truly low-income parents are generally uninvolved in their children’s education because they work multiple jobs and struggle with alcoholism.
While some families face hardships, not all low-income parents are uninvolved, nor do they all struggle with addiction. Many work hard to support their children’s education.

2. Suggesting That Financial Aid for Low-Income Students Is a "Waste"
The post frames financial aid as only worthwhile if the student succeeds, rather than as an opportunity for those who wouldn’t otherwise afford private school.
The idea that a student "failed out" and their mother’s death led them to selling drugs suggests a lack of empathy for systemic issues rather than recognizing the challenges some students face.

3. Favoritism Toward Middle-Class Families Over Low-Income Families
The poster prefers financial aid to go to middle-class teachers rather than low-income families, based on personal comfort with teachers.
This reinforces elitism—that financial aid should benefit those who "fit in" rather than those with the greatest financial need.

4. Insensitive Language & Judgmental Tone
Describing someone as an “entrepreneur” selling drugs trivializes their struggles.
The phrase “five years of financial aid wasted” is particularly problematic because it suggests that struggling students don’t deserve help unless they meet a certain outcome.

While concerns about school culture and parental involvement are valid, this post comes across as classist and lacking compassion. It assumes that financial aid should only go to students with stable families, ignoring that financial aid exists to give disadvantaged kids a chance, not just to reward those with ideal circumstances.

It's lived experience. Bias develops through lived experience. You could benefit from a basic psychology course. And yes, people here write about lived experience.

BTW - 'entrepreneur' I the term the kids in HS use. Perhaps you should get familiar with this before your kids get there.

Thanks for the AI response though. It shows your inability to think and form a real opinion.