Are we too wealthy for financial aid for 3 kids?

[Anonymous]

I am a SAHM, we live in a $1m house, and DH makes $150,000. We have no mortgage. We also have three kids we'd like to send to private school in DC. Are we too wealthy to qualify for financial aid at DC private schools? We can't possibly pay $90,000 a year on our income to put three kids in private DC schools. If I went back to work, all my income would to go tuition and nannies. So, is that my choice -- go back to work, or move to the suburbs? (Using the equity in our house to pay tuition is not an option.)

Has anyone in a similar financial situation received financial aid from any independent schools? Thanks for your responses.

[Anonymous]

I have been in a similar situation. With school age children, the school will expect you to go back to work and they will attribute income to you if you choose to stay home.

Every penny of my after-tax income goes to pay tuition for my three children, which is why I work. I would not support a school offering aid to someone with school age children who chose to stay home.

[Anonymous]

What about 2 working parents who make no more than 150k a year and have college and graduate school debt? I have only one DD (so far) and since we both went to private schools elsewhere, we want to send our kid(s) to private school as well. Would we qualify for Financial aid?

[Anonymous]

Probably.

[Anonymous]

Definitely should be able to get some aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been in a similar situation. With school age children, the school will expect you to go back to work and they will attribute income to you if you choose to stay home.

Every penny of my after-tax income goes to pay tuition for my three children, which is why I work. I would not support a school offering aid to someone with school age children who chose to stay home.

So the answer is that we would not qualify for financial aid at any of the DC private schools?

And when you say they will "attribute income to you" what does that mean? I never made much money when I was working, and if I went back to work now I'd barely make enough to justify the child care expenses I'd incur. How much income would the school attribute to me? And even if I did work and earned, say, $75,000, we'd still be unable to spend $90,000 and up a year on private school tuition because I'd have to hire a nanny and would have all the other expenses (clothes, transportation, lunches, etc.) one does not have as a SAHM.

And why do you work if all your money goes to your children's tuition? Why not stay at home in the suburbs, where the schools are free?

My problem is that I want it all: I want to live in DC, stay at home with my kids, and send them to good private schools, all on my husband's fairly decent (but not by DC standards) salary. A pipe dream, huh?

[Anonymous]

P.S. (I'm the OP.) I don't understand the PP's comment that she would not support a school that gives financial aid to someone with school aged children who chooses to stay at home. Why? Isn't it supposed to be better for the children to have a parent at home? And wealthy parents can stay at home if the working spouse's income is high enough. So, no child on financial aid at a private school is entitled to have a parent stay at home, whilst the wealthier kids do have that advantage? It seems an odd policy to me. If my husband's income were 50K, would I still be expected to work to contribute something to our children's private school tuition bills? Sounds just like welfare reform. No handouts to lazy people unwilling to work, regardless of the needs of their children.

[Anonymous]

I understand the concept of taking into account potential earnings of a SAHM before allocating aid
After all, the decision to be a SAHM is a luxury, in a way...something many families can't afford
And the decision on financial aid is linked to money matters, isn't it?
Probably schools may take it into account if there is a sick child at home, or the SAHM is disabled...
But issues of paying for child care also hit ANY working family...

[Anonymous]

If you have no mortgage on a 1 Million dollar home, they will expect you to take our equity to pay for school. There is no way around it. Plus, they also expect you to work. We both work, have one child, earn around 140K combined. Because we have equity in the house (around 300k) we didn't qualify. We were told we could afford to pay around 50K a year for school. Our child's school costs almost 30k.

Meet with the financial aid director at your choice school. They will tell you that same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:P.S. (I'm the OP.) I don't understand the PP's comment that she would not support a school that gives financial aid to someone with school aged children who chooses to stay at home. Why? Isn't it supposed to be better for the children to have a parent at home? And wealthy parents can stay at home if the working spouse's income is high enough. So, no child on financial aid at a private school is entitled to have a parent stay at home, whilst the wealthier kids do have that advantage? It seems an odd policy to me. If my husband's income were 50K, would I still be expected to work to contribute something to our children's private school tuition bills? Sounds just like welfare reform. No handouts to lazy people unwilling to work, regardless of the needs of their children.

The financial aid resources at all these schools are quite limited. If your children are in school all day, you have at least 6 hours each day to work, even if you want to be home when they are home. I would love to be home, and I've often considered whether I should do public school and stay home or work and send to public school. I never expected to have both. Financial aid $$ comes from contributions -- often contributions from families with two working parents.

[Anonymous]

A lot of middle class families with a SAHM end up in public school for this reasons. Ultra-rich families with a SAHM may end up in private.

[Anonymous]

After all, the decision to be a SAHM is a luxury, in a way...something many families can't afford

I am a SAHM because it would be more expensive for our family if I worked and we hired help......I did not have a high paying job before. And from what I have learned on this board - in this city - nannies need to make almost 50K or more per year. It's cheaper for me to be home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:P.S. (I'm the OP.) I don't understand the PP's comment that she would not support a school that gives financial aid to someone with school aged children who chooses to stay at home. Why? Isn't it supposed to be better for the children to have a parent at home? And wealthy parents can stay at home if the working spouse's income is high enough. So, no child on financial aid at a private school is entitled to have a parent stay at home, whilst the wealthier kids do have that advantage? It seems an odd policy to me. If my husband's income were 50K, would I still be expected to work to contribute something to our children's private school tuition bills? Sounds just like welfare reform. No handouts to lazy people unwilling to work, regardless of the needs of their children.

Are you kidding? There are plenty of dual income families with children at independent schools who don't have a $1M home without mortgage. Why would they support the school (by giving to the Annual Fund or Annual Auction for Financial Aid) so that you can stay home? Some wealthy parents stay home, others don't. Point is, they aren't asking for financial aid and often give to support those that need it. This is about choices not entitlement. Sounds like you want it all, at other people's expense. We all would like the luxury of having a parent at home with our children. If it's that important to you, send your children to public school. It's your choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

After all, the decision to be a SAHM is a luxury, in a way...something many families can't afford

I am a SAHM because it would be more expensive for our family if I worked and we hired help......I did not have a high paying job before. And from what I have learned on this board - in this city - nannies need to make almost 50K or more per year. It's cheaper for me to be home.

the average 2 parent-working family doesn't have a nanny
the kids go to daycare, or coop care, or stay with grandma...
If you became single again, for any reason, wouldn't you find a way to go back to work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

After all, the decision to be a SAHM is a luxury, in a way...something many families can't afford

I am a SAHM because it would be more expensive for our family if I worked and we hired help......I did not have a high paying job before. And from what I have learned on this board - in this city - nannies need to make almost 50K or more per year. It's cheaper for me to be home.

If your children are in school all day, you certainly don't need a $50/year nanny. Just put them in aftercare.