Should schools be underwriting private education for the already privileged?

[Anonymous]

So SAHM families shouldn't receive financial aid but it's fine for the dual income parents I know who have bought second homes and multiple cars who then ask for FA? One of our friends remarked she should have bought a beach house because of all the people getting FA who had done so (and could claim debt). She felt frustrated that they had scrimped and saved and were penalized for it. Maybe a SAHM wouldn't make enough to pay for child care.

At some point you have to let it go. Let the schools determine who they want to give money to. They will make the decisions based on who they feel will be an asset to the school. That might include SAHM families or people with beach houses or country club memberships. I don't know and don't ask. If I thought we would qualify and needed the help, we'd apply too. I know one thing for sure, these schools certainly don't mind when those SAHMs are the ones volunteering!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids go to an expensive private school, some of their most impressive peers are the kids of highly educated teachers or government employees with impressive degrees. I have no idea who gets financial aid but I send my kids to this school to be surrounded by kids from families who value strong education and hard work, not necessarily those who live in the biggest houses.

Kids from families who value strong education and hard work. But not the poor ones. No, not the poor ones.

None of these kids have true low income kids, i.e. families making under $80 or on assistance or foster care.

Those kids would cost $55K/year/kid in aid. A school with a $1 million dollar aid budget can only support 20 of them. If there are 2 kids in a family, they can support 10 families total. If there are 3 kids, they can support 6-7 families total. Plus these kids would need subsidized transportation, aftercare, etc. So that's another $10K/kid easily.

And then those 20 kids would be in school with classmates who all make $400-500K+. Many making $800K+ I think we can all agree that this might not be the easiest row to hoe for those kids. This scenario is not without significant problems for the 20 kids, the school, etc.

Wow. Now that’s one big fat convenient rationalization.

No, simply pointing out what these schools struggle with. Aid is finite. Do you give it all to 6-10 families across all grades or do you divide it up? It's not as easy as saying 'we want to fund impoverished kids." It's not a simple issue at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids go to an expensive private school, some of their most impressive peers are the kids of highly educated teachers or government employees with impressive degrees. I have no idea who gets financial aid but I send my kids to this school to be surrounded by kids from families who value strong education and hard work, not necessarily those who live in the biggest houses.

Kids from families who value strong education and hard work. But not the poor ones. No, not the poor ones.

None of these kids have true low income kids, i.e. families making under $80 or on assistance or foster care.

Those kids would cost $55K/year/kid in aid. A school with a $1 million dollar aid budget can only support 20 of them. If there are 2 kids in a family, they can support 10 families total. If there are 3 kids, they can support 6-7 families total. Plus these kids would need subsidized transportation, aftercare, etc. So that's another $10K/kid easily.

And then those 20 kids would be in school with classmates who all make $400-500K+. Many making $800K+ I think we can all agree that this might not be the easiest row to hoe for those kids. This scenario is not without significant problems for the 20 kids, the school, etc.

Wow. Now that’s one big fat convenient rationalization.

No, simply pointing out what these schools struggle with. Aid is finite. Do you give it all to 6-10 families across all grades or do you divide it up? It's not as easy as saying 'we want to fund impoverished kids." It's not a simple issue at all.

Of course it isn’t simple. But if the will was there to do it, all those enormous brains in admin and on the Board would figure out a way to fund more poor kids. And really, why should they? The families don’t want them to.

[Anonymous]

I think financial aid should be for super talented kids from poor families. Average kids from middle class families can easily go to good public schools. There is nothing bad about that.

[Anonymous]

In Maret I only see upper middle class kids benefiting from financial aid. None of those families are from lower middle class or poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So SAHM families shouldn't receive financial aid but it's fine for the dual income parents I know who have bought second homes and multiple cars who then ask for FA? One of our friends remarked she should have bought a beach house because of all the people getting FA who had done so (and could claim debt). She felt frustrated that they had scrimped and saved and were penalized for it. Maybe a SAHM wouldn't make enough to pay for child care.

At some point you have to let it go. Let the schools determine who they want to give money to. They will make the decisions based on who they feel will be an asset to the school. That might include SAHM families or people with beach houses or country club memberships. I don't know and don't ask. If I thought we would qualify and needed the help, we'd apply too. I know one thing for sure, these schools certainly don't mind when those SAHMs are the ones volunteering!

Really?! I think they create BS jobs for SAHPs to do so they can feel involved. Our private school has severely cut down on these BS roles through the years as the demographics have shifted to more 2 working parent households with nannies. We've been at the same school for 20 years (4 kids). Our family "volunteers" by donating at a high tier, as they would expect from us. Most of the FA at our school go to those in the community. I.e. teachers and admin who otherwise couldn't afford to send their kids there. I'm totally fine with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So SAHM families shouldn't receive financial aid but it's fine for the dual income parents I know who have bought second homes and multiple cars who then ask for FA? One of our friends remarked she should have bought a beach house because of all the people getting FA who had done so (and could claim debt). She felt frustrated that they had scrimped and saved and were penalized for it. Maybe a SAHM wouldn't make enough to pay for child care.

At some point you have to let it go. Let the schools determine who they want to give money to. They will make the decisions based on who they feel will be an asset to the school. That might include SAHM families or people with beach houses or country club memberships. I don't know and don't ask. If I thought we would qualify and needed the help, we'd apply too. I know one thing for sure, these schools certainly don't mind when those SAHMs are the ones volunteering!

Really?! I think they create BS jobs for SAHPs to do so they can feel involved. Our private school has severely cut down on these BS roles through the years as the demographics have shifted to more 2 working parent households with nannies. We've been at the same school for 20 years (4 kids). Our family "volunteers" by donating at a high tier, as they would expect from us. Most of the FA at our school go to those in the community. I.e. teachers and admin who otherwise couldn't afford to send their kids there. I'm totally fine with that.

Which school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By your logic, no one with a stay at home mother should be considered for financial aid since they are purposefully not maximizing their earnings. Yikes!

That’s actually a disqualifier for aid at my kids’ school, unless the stay at home parent has a compelling reason (e.g. taking care of sick parents or special needs kid, or medical issue themselves).

For most schools, the FA program will assign a "salary" for to the SAHM parent for HHI calculations, if there aren't the compelling reasons listed above for them to stay home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So SAHM families shouldn't receive financial aid but it's fine for the dual income parents I know who have bought second homes and multiple cars who then ask for FA? One of our friends remarked she should have bought a beach house because of all the people getting FA who had done so (and could claim debt). [b]She felt frustrated that they had scrimped and saved and were penalized for it. Maybe a SAHM wouldn't make enough to pay for child care.

At some point you have to let it go. Let the schools determine who they want to give money to. They will make the decisions based on who they feel will be an asset to the school. That might include SAHM families or people with beach houses or country club memberships. I don't know and don't ask. If I thought we would qualify and needed the help, we'd apply too. I know one thing for sure, these schools certainly don't mind when those SAHMs are the ones volunteering!

BS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids go to an expensive private school, some of their most impressive peers are the kids of highly educated teachers or government employees with impressive degrees. I have no idea who gets financial aid but I send my kids to this school to be surrounded by kids from families who value strong education and hard work, not necessarily those who live in the biggest houses.

Kids from families who value strong education and hard work. But not the poor ones. No, not the poor ones.

You missed my point, I don't care about their income or wealth, just their values.

many teachers choose that path for flexibility - do you question their values too?

It's insane that you are questioning values of journalists, hill staffers, and ACLU (or other NGO) staff? Really? Usually these people are smart and care about making a difference. Meanwhile, there are plenty of big law or lobbyist parents I've met who have zero values (not all - but more in that high earner group than the lower earners being slayed).

I think you are responding to the wrong poster. I am not questioning the values of journalists, hill staffers, or ACLU folks. If they value a great education and hard work they are welcome and I hope our school gives them whatever financial aid is available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By your logic, no one with a stay at home mother should be considered for financial aid since they are purposefully not maximizing their earnings. Yikes!

NP. That's right. That's how it should be.

Fortunately, at our school, one of the requirements for FA is that both parents are working, doing at least something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By your logic, no one with a stay at home mother should be considered for financial aid since they are purposefully not maximizing their earnings. Yikes!

NP. That's right. That's how it should be.

Fortunately, at our school, one of the requirements for FA is that both parents are working, doing at least something.

Does "doing something" include caring for children who are not school-age?

[Anonymous]

I’ve read a lot of these threads, but “you shouldn’t get aid because you could theoretically have a higher salary than your actual salary” is one of the most exceptionally sh*tty takes I’ve seen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids go to an expensive private school, some of their most impressive peers are the kids of highly educated teachers or government employees with impressive degrees. I have no idea who gets financial aid but I send my kids to this school to be surrounded by kids from families who value strong education and hard work, not necessarily those who live in the biggest houses.

Kids from families who value strong education and hard work. But not the poor ones. No, not the poor ones.

None of these kids have true low income kids, i.e. families making under $80 or on assistance or foster care.

Those kids would cost $55K/year/kid in aid. A school with a $1 million dollar aid budget can only support 20 of them. If there are 2 kids in a family, they can support 10 families total. If there are 3 kids, they can support 6-7 families total. Plus these kids would need subsidized transportation, aftercare, etc. So that's another $10K/kid easily.

And then those 20 kids would be in school with classmates who all make $400-500K+. Many making $800K+ I think we can all agree that this might not be the easiest row to hoe for those kids. This scenario is not without significant problems for the 20 kids, the school, etc.

Wow. Now that’s one big fat convenient rationalization.

No, simply pointing out what these schools struggle with. Aid is finite. Do you give it all to 6-10 families across all grades or do you divide it up? It's not as easy as saying 'we want to fund impoverished kids." It's not a simple issue at all.

Of course it isn’t simple. But if the will was there to do it, all those enormous brains in admin and on the Board would figure out a way to fund more poor kids. And really, why should they? The families don’t want them to.

They can’t magic money out of thin air.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read a lot of these threads, but “you shouldn’t get aid because you could theoretically have a higher salary than your actual salary” is one of the most exceptionally sh*tty takes I’ve seen.

Agreed. Frankly, if those with moderate incomes should be making more money, shouldn't you also hold the poor responsible for making money? Should they not have tried harder in school? Valued education? Worked harder at their jobs? Had fewer children?
I was a poverty-level financial aid child growing up (and would have met OP's standard for "poor enough to actually deserve aid") but it was because my dad was a cheat and my mom refused to work. There was nothing admirable about our need for aid. My parents were frankly just dysfunctional and lazy.

My point: you can't selectively hold people to a standard of making more money. If you have this standard for some you really need to have it for all.