Lawsuits when you don't attend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible behavior by Sandy Springs. People will forever refer to Sandy Springs as the Quaker school that sues poor black people.

What is the point of suing this woman? She's broke. It looks like Sandy Springs wants the sick pleasure of seeing her declare bankruptcy.

I am not Quaker but I work with their national organizations. I won't be surprised if this comes up in meetings next week.

The board and staff and parents at Sandy Springs should all be ashamed of themselves. They are nothing but predators, preying on a single mom with no money but high hopes for her wonderful child. What they did to her is unconscionable. It's time for SSFS to shutdown.

In what way does a random parent at the school share the blame for this? Complete nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible behavior by Sandy Springs. People will forever refer to Sandy Springs as the Quaker school that sues poor black people.

What is the point of suing this woman? She's broke. It looks like Sandy Springs wants the sick pleasure of seeing her declare bankruptcy.

I am not Quaker but I work with their national organizations. I won't be surprised if this comes up in meetings next week.

The board and staff and parents at Sandy Springs should all be ashamed of themselves. They are nothing but predators, preying on a single mom with no money but high hopes for her wonderful child. What they did to her is unconscionable. It's time for SSFS to shutdown.

In what way does a random parent at the school share the blame for this? Complete nonsense.

Correct. This is the fault of the school, not the parents. They are responsible for the aggressive tactics of their chosen law firm.

[Anonymous]

The truly crazy part is that SSFS is on life support. Who in their right mind would sign their child up as full-pay for PreK at a school that runs through 12th Grade? The school won't be around for 14 more years. I'm surprised it's still open at all.

One thing is for sure. This mom's child wasn't taking away a slot from someone else. She didn't cause any loss whatsoever to SSFS. Shame on SSFS and its lawyer.

[Anonymous]

According to the WaPo article:

This parent signed the contract without reading all the fine print, on the strength of another parent telling her that they had received financial aid. After she signed, she realized there was no financial aid for preschool. However she received an email from the school saying that enrollment was not complete until they received the deposit, so she thought that not paying the deposit would be sufficient to avoid paying tuition. It was not.

If you read the article, it becomes apparent that this parent accumulated comprehension mistakes. She also looked for county programs for help with tuition, but realized it did not apply to private schools only after receiving an award.

This is what happens to the most vulnerable. They are not able to protect themselves against predatory methods. It's sad that humans prey on other humans.

Personally, I think this parent should be liable for some, but not all, the tuition. The school has shown itself to be extremely harsh against a fragile family. That's a really bad look. I hope public outcry changes the outcome here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to the WaPo article:

This parent signed the contract without reading all the fine print, on the strength of another parent telling her that they had received financial aid. After she signed, she realized there was no financial aid for preschool. However she received an email from the school saying that enrollment was not complete until they received the deposit, so she thought that not paying the deposit would be sufficient to avoid paying tuition. It was not.

If you read the article, it becomes apparent that this parent accumulated comprehension mistakes. She also looked for county programs for help with tuition, but realized it did not apply to private schools only after receiving an award.

This is what happens to the most vulnerable. They are not able to protect themselves against predatory methods. It's sad that humans prey on other humans.

Personally, I think this parent should be liable for some, but not all, the tuition. The school has shown itself to be extremely harsh against a fragile family. That's a really bad look. I hope public outcry changes the outcome here.

None of this is predatory. The parent didn’t read the contract, didn’t read the website, apparently didn’t even ask about financial aid and somehow just assumed it would show up. When it didn’t, she applied for outside aid in the same way, not actually reading what the funds could be used for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the WaPo article:

This parent signed the contract without reading all the fine print, on the strength of another parent telling her that they had received financial aid. After she signed, she realized there was no financial aid for preschool. However she received an email from the school saying that enrollment was not complete until they received the deposit, so she thought that not paying the deposit would be sufficient to avoid paying tuition. It was not.

If you read the article, it becomes apparent that this parent accumulated comprehension mistakes. She also looked for county programs for help with tuition, but realized it did not apply to private schools only after receiving an award.

This is what happens to the most vulnerable. They are not able to protect themselves against predatory methods. It's sad that humans prey on other humans.

Personally, I think this parent should be liable for some, but not all, the tuition. The school has shown itself to be extremely harsh against a fragile family. That's a really bad look. I hope public outcry changes the outcome here.

None of this is predatory. The parent didn’t read the contract, didn’t read the website, apparently didn’t even ask about financial aid and somehow just assumed it would show up. When it didn’t, she applied for outside aid in the same way, not actually reading what the funds could be used for.

Adding, that’s not to say the school should have some compassion or at least some awareness of optics, and I don’t really know what the point of suing is since you can’t get water from a dry stone, but I don’t agree with the folks going on about how this poor woman was taken advantage of by the big bad school. She wasn’t. She read NOTHING. She asked no questions. She made a lot of assumptions and it bit her in the butt.

[Anonymous]

^ not to say the school should NOT have compassion.

[Anonymous]

She said she didn't read the contract she signed and assumed it would be like the Y.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the WaPo article:

This parent signed the contract without reading all the fine print, on the strength of another parent telling her that they had received financial aid. After she signed, she realized there was no financial aid for preschool. However she received an email from the school saying that enrollment was not complete until they received the deposit, so she thought that not paying the deposit would be sufficient to avoid paying tuition. It was not.

If you read the article, it becomes apparent that this parent accumulated comprehension mistakes. She also looked for county programs for help with tuition, but realized it did not apply to private schools only after receiving an award.

This is what happens to the most vulnerable. They are not able to protect themselves against predatory methods. It's sad that humans prey on other humans.

Personally, I think this parent should be liable for some, but not all, the tuition. The school has shown itself to be extremely harsh against a fragile family. That's a really bad look. I hope public outcry changes the outcome here.

None of this is predatory. The parent didn’t read the contract, didn’t read the website, apparently didn’t even ask about financial aid and somehow just assumed it would show up. When it didn’t, she applied for outside aid in the same way, not actually reading what the funds could be used for.

It is predatory, it's just that habit and precedent have made us accept the currently horrible practices that private schools use to exploit families. The most important point of pressure is that families are on the hook for ALL the year's tuition, in late spring of the enrollment year. That's abusive. Many financial situations can change between spring and fall, and it would be more fair to only require payment of the first quarter or semester, depending on the school's calendar system. The article cites just one school in the DC area that does this. Schools, if they were fair, could all do that, since there is such a demand from families that they could easily fill a spot mid-year.

And don't give me that crap about creating the right class cohort, as another school said for the article. Replacing a couple of student spots mid-year isn't going to change the dynamics of the class. I'm a product of international private schools, and there was always some turnover year round as diplomat families moved around on their own countries' school schedules (the Japanese school year starts in April, for ex) - the class dynamic didn't change with those comings and goings.

So no, PP. I feel very strongly that the currently accepted practices are inherently unfair to the consumer and exist solely in the financial interests of the businesses in question. What makes it worse is that those businesses are supposedly trying to instill ethics and values in children. Ironic.

[Anonymous]

From the article, it appears that SSFS actually went to trial against this mom. How crazy and fiscally irresponsible is that? It should have been pretty easy to figure out she has no money. Is the school planning on tarnishing her future wages? If not, the school wasted 10k or more for its attorney (btw did the attorney think any of this made sense?), ruined another person's life, and further trashed its reputation, this time in the Washington Post.

Someone earlier asked why the parents at the school are responsible. Maybe they aren't directly responsible, but it does seem that anyone still left there should be going to the board and HOS and tell them to knock it off.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps whoever is advising them on legal matters also went to Liberty University.

[Anonymous]

^garnishing, not tarnishing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the article, it appears that SSFS actually went to trial against this mom. How crazy and fiscally irresponsible is that? It should have been pretty easy to figure out she has no money. Is the school planning on tarnishing her future wages? If not, the school wasted 10k or more for its attorney (btw did the attorney think any of this made sense?), ruined another person's life, and further trashed its reputation, this time in the Washington Post.

Someone earlier asked why the parents at the school are responsible. Maybe they aren't directly responsible, but it does seem that anyone still left there should be going to the board and HOS and tell them to knock it off.

The administration of this school does not appear to be up to the task of running a school and making financially sound decisions. I think the admin is desperate and did think this through, choosing to let a law firm, known to be aggressive, hound this poor deluded parent to the end. In the end, what do they get? Not much, considering the law firm is very expensive. The negative press is not worth the sum they might, or might not, recover.

This plus the fundraising agreement that was announced (and which is VERY weird, usually you don't announce such things, and certainly not with a shady company owned by a student's parent), makes me extremely leery of this school's administration. I would send my kids there. They don't seem to be operating with a full set of marbles.

[Anonymous]

didn't think this through

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a huge piece of information missing from this article. SSFS does not start giving financial aid until Kindergarten. This is stated on their financial aid page and has been for years. This child would have been in PK, so financial aid was never going to be an option. Between the parent's lack of reading the contract before signing, and an apparent lack of financial aid research, I fail to see how the school is at fault.

No doubt that the school is legally correct and that the parent was unsophisticated and naive about how things work. But that doesn't change the school's moral culpability, IMO.

+1. Private schools have been able to weasel out of a basic obligation of contract law to mitigate damages. Doesn’t make it fair.