Is your private having another tuition increase?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While there is clearly a wide range of incomes, I would guess that the typical non-financial aid family at one of the selective private schools earns at least $3-400k/year. So a 3% COLA is $9-12k - plenty to cover an addition $1-2k for tuition. Obviously families making half of that will have a harder time if they don't get financial aid, but there are very few families in that income range. Until there are more slots than applicants, there will be plenty of families lining up to pay tuition.

For the typical family earning this amount, paying tuition for two is tough as is. If we didn't have a $700K mortgage (then again, I'm not sure where we'd live- definitely not anywhere near our private) or save for retirement or college, we could swing these increases. As it stands, we're being priced out and are considering parochial or public. DH hasn't had a raise in over 3 years. The COLAs I've received are insubstantial. We just can't keep doing this.

Before anyone attacks the above scenarios for their high incomes, expensive houses, or difficulty in making enviable choices we should remember that these type of families are the bread and butter of the independent school movement. We all know families that can easily afford the recent tuition increases and still afford the annual ski vacation to St Moritz. That isn't the point. Independent school business models face the challenge of a smaller and smaller community of families who can afford their services, and the competition of improving publics/charters that bring their value proposition into greater focus/question. If I were running an independent school, the population that I would focus most intensely on would be the upper middle class. Not that the rich families and financial aid students matter less - it is just that the model is designed to naturally take care of these groups, whereas the full-fee paying, two working professional parent families seem to be stretched to the limit and without them the schools will become hollowed out.

Nope as wealth concentrates at the top and in cities, they will have more super wealthy families to choose from. They are loosing *their* middle class (people who make 200,000ish ) but the top teir earners in this area are doing fine (hence house prices) and those will become more and more of thier bread and butter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While there is clearly a wide range of incomes, I would guess that the typical non-financial aid family at one of the selective private schools earns at least $3-400k/year. So a 3% COLA is $9-12k - plenty to cover an addition $1-2k for tuition. Obviously families making half of that will have a harder time if they don't get financial aid, but there are very few families in that income range. Until there are more slots than applicants, there will be plenty of families lining up to pay tuition.

For the typical family earning this amount, paying tuition for two is tough as is. If we didn't have a $700K mortgage (then again, I'm not sure where we'd live- definitely not anywhere near our private) or save for retirement or college, we could swing these increases. As it stands, we're being priced out and are considering parochial or public. DH hasn't had a raise in over 3 years. The COLAs I've received are insubstantial. We just can't keep doing this.

Before anyone attacks the above scenarios for their high incomes, expensive houses, or difficulty in making enviable choices we should remember that these type of families are the bread and butter of the independent school movement. We all know families that can easily afford the recent tuition increases and still afford the annual ski vacation to St Moritz. That isn't the point. Independent school business models face the challenge of a smaller and smaller community of families who can afford their services, and the competition of improving publics/charters that bring their value proposition into greater focus/question. If I were running an independent school, the population that I would focus most intensely on would be the upper middle class. Not that the rich families and financial aid students matter less - it is just that the model is designed to naturally take care of these groups, whereas the full-fee paying, two working professional parent families seem to be stretched to the limit and without them the schools will become hollowed out.

Nope as wealth concentrates at the top and in cities, they will have more super wealthy families to choose from. They are loosing *their* middle class (people who make 200,000ish ) but the top teir earners in this area are doing fine (hence house prices) and those will become more and more of thier bread and butter.

Dude, you are making the same point as the person you are disagreeing with.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm… as we hone in on the ultra wealthy and shed off the $200K or so "average" families…that will definitely result in a most obnoxious cohort of students -- it will be harder and harder for these private schools to act on ex-missions of the wealthiest kids who may, in these often intimate class sizes, bring a less than healthy atmosphere to a class that is diverse economically. The schools will not only lose the middle class families, but some of the brightest children who will look good on the college acceptances won't be able to afford it. Then we get into padding the universities and the William Kennedy Smith and George Hugely the V types…sailing on because of money --not scholarship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, that's an average raise. Actually, now the schools have gotten so smug that they say " we are pleased to only be raising tuition 4% this year" and then they show the graphs of the arms race with all of their other " fellow NAIS schools" also at 40 K.

Then their is the line about " needing to be able to continue to offer teachers the best salaries "

AND

let's not forget capital campaigns.

Here's an idea: stop building things, pay teachers and keep tuition reasonable

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While there is clearly a wide range of incomes, I would guess that the typical non-financial aid family at one of the selective private schools earns at least $3-400k/year. So a 3% COLA is $9-12k - plenty to cover an addition $1-2k for tuition. Obviously families making half of that will have a harder time if they don't get financial aid, but there are very few families in that income range. Until there are more slots than applicants, there will be plenty of families lining up to pay tuition.

For the typical family earning this amount, paying tuition for two is tough as is. If we didn't have a $700K mortgage (then again, I'm not sure where we'd live- definitely not anywhere near our private) or save for retirement or college, we could swing these increases. As it stands, we're being priced out and are considering parochial or public. DH hasn't had a raise in over 3 years. The COLAs I've received are insubstantial. We just can't keep doing this.

Before anyone attacks the above scenarios for their high incomes, expensive houses, or difficulty in making enviable choices we should remember that these type of families are the bread and butter of the independent school movement. We all know families that can easily afford the recent tuition increases and still afford the annual ski vacation to St Moritz. That isn't the point. Independent school business models face the challenge of a smaller and smaller community of families who can afford their services, and the competition of improving publics/charters that bring their value proposition into greater focus/question. If I were running an independent school, the population that I would focus most intensely on would be the upper middle class. Not that the rich families and financial aid students matter less - it is just that the model is designed to naturally take care of these groups, whereas the full-fee paying, two working professional parent families seem to be stretched to the limit and without them the schools will become hollowed out.

Yup . now start the letter campaign to every private school board in town 'cause they just are NOT hearing it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While there is clearly a wide range of incomes, I would guess that the typical non-financial aid family at one of the selective private schools earns at least $3-400k/year. So a 3% COLA is $9-12k - plenty to cover an addition $1-2k for tuition. Obviously families making half of that will have a harder time if they don't get financial aid, but there are very few families in that income range. Until there are more slots than applicants, there will be plenty of families lining up to pay tuition.

For the typical family earning this amount, paying tuition for two is tough as is. If we didn't have a $700K mortgage (then again, I'm not sure where we'd live- definitely not anywhere near our private) or save for retirement or college, we could swing these increases. As it stands, we're being priced out and are considering parochial or public. DH hasn't had a raise in over 3 years. The COLAs I've received are insubstantial. We just can't keep doing this.

Before anyone attacks the above scenarios for their high incomes, expensive houses, or difficulty in making enviable choices we should remember that these type of families are the bread and butter of the independent school movement. We all know families that can easily afford the recent tuition increases and still afford the annual ski vacation to St Moritz. That isn't the point. Independent school business models face the challenge of a smaller and smaller community of families who can afford their services, and the competition of improving publics/charters that bring their value proposition into greater focus/question. If I were running an independent school, the population that I would focus most intensely on would be the upper middle class. Not that the rich families and financial aid students matter less - it is just that the model is designed to naturally take care of these groups, whereas the full-fee paying, two working professional parent families seem to be stretched to the limit and without them the schools will become hollowed out.

Yup . now start the letter campaign to every private school board in town 'cause they just are NOT hearing it

Or they hear it but don't know what to do when 70% of their costs are for personnel (mostly teachers), and they want to have good teacher tenure and keep offering health care. Cap teacher salaries like in the government's GS system? Well, most schools don't do that, so then they may lose some of their best teachers and get slammed for all that teacher turnover. Eliminate staff by, say, dropping some subject areas? Then they lose out to the school that has Chinese. Cut some administrators?

The issue of run-away tuitions poses existential level risk to schools, but it's not that easy to figure out how to arrest the rising tuitions. Even schools with a lean administrative structure have the yearly tuition increases.

[Anonymous]

It's private school. If you don't want to pay the tuition, then you have a choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm… as we hone in on the ultra wealthy and shed off the $200K or so "average" families…that will definitely result in a most obnoxious cohort of students -- it will be harder and harder for these private schools to act on ex-missions of the wealthiest kids who may, in these often intimate class sizes, bring a less than healthy atmosphere to a class that is diverse economically. The schools will not only lose the middle class families, but some of the brightest children who will look good on the college acceptances won't be able to afford it. Then we get into padding the universities and the William Kennedy Smith and George Hugely the V types…sailing on because of money --not scholarship

Another problem is this:

As schools lose their middle and upper middle class, they become more and more beholden to full pay families who can pay full fare + donate $$$. So, when problems arise with the DC of one of these " important families to our community" what is the fall out ?? The school caves to the VIP for their $$$$ and your school loses what : quality teachers ( the really good ones) who will not compromise their integrity ( snow flake is getting that bad mark, sorry) , Admin burn out ( and the strain of constantly bringing in new Admin blood) . and ultimately mutiny among the Indians and the school falls apart.

Teachers want to teach, not kiss ass. Administrators need to be able to lead a school and manage their faculty , not "partner with parents" and kids need to follow the rules . Money and and over dependance on same corrupts all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm… as we hone in on the ultra wealthy and shed off the $200K or so "average" families…that will definitely result in a most obnoxious cohort of students -- it will be harder and harder for these private schools to act on ex-missions of the wealthiest kids who may, in these often intimate class sizes, bring a less than healthy atmosphere to a class that is diverse economically. The schools will not only lose the middle class families, but some of the brightest children who will look good on the college acceptances won't be able to afford it. Then we get into padding the universities and the William Kennedy Smith and George Hugely the V types…sailing on because of money --not scholarship

Another problem is this:

As schools lose their middle and upper middle class, they become more and more beholden to full pay families who can pay full fare + donate $$$. So, when problems arise with the DC of one of these " important families to our community" what is the fall out ?? The school caves to the VIP for their $$$$ and your school loses what : quality teachers ( the really good ones) who will not compromise their integrity ( snow flake is getting that bad mark, sorry) , Admin burn out ( and the strain of constantly bringing in new Admin blood) . and ultimately mutiny among the Indians and the school falls apart.

Teachers want to teach, not kiss ass. Administrators need to be able to lead a school and manage their faculty , not "partner with parents" and kids need to follow the rules . Money and and over dependance on same corrupts all of this.

+1

[Anonymous]

And more fall out still-- the high achieving students who work hard and play by the rules learn that money and privilege wins over character. Not only does this set these kids up for mistrust of adults as the hypocrisy is palpable it is a disservice to the wealthy kids who will likely have a much better outcome in college and life if they would have just received a swift kick in the ass in middle and high school and learn to be rewarded on merit. Those of us with a child in the big privates know this already goes on all the time. Good and fair teachers and smart decent kids lose favor to the $$.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone here have transparency into the budgeting of these schools? Do we actually know what is driving the price up? Is it facilities or simply healthcare? Is it because they now need a computer and IT department they didn't need 20 years ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And more fall out still-- the high achieving students who work hard and play by the rules learn that money and privilege wins over character. Not only does this set these kids up for mistrust of adults as the hypocrisy is palpable it is a disservice to the wealthy kids who will likely have a much better outcome in college and life if they would have just received a swift kick in the ass in middle and high school and learn to be rewarded on merit. Those of us with a child in the big privates know this already goes on all the time. Good and fair teachers and smart decent kids lose favor to the $$.

What part of paying for the luxuries in life so unfair or hypocritical? I would love to have a 911 instead of a BMW. Instead, I send my child to to a private school surrounded by highly motivated, hard working, smart kids with an intellectually demanding curriculum. I know my child would get a perfectly fine education at our local public school, but I have a distaste for big bureaucracies and people who peaked in high school. I enjoy talking to my child about the modern literature she reads for class and complex policy questions she is researching for social studies much more than I enjoy shopping. So my child's private school education is the reward I get for having worked hard and done well in life. If I couldn't afford to keep the BMW, I'd get a Honda and my life wouldn't be any different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone here have transparency into the budgeting of these schools? Do we actually know what is driving the price up? Is it facilities or simply healthcare? Is it because they now need a computer and IT department they didn't need 20 years ago?

I am in a position to know that at my kids' school, the increase (which is just under 4%) is being driven entirely by healthcare and faculty salary increases.

The Crash of 2008 began to be felt most severely in the 2010-11 academic year. It didn't affect the 2008-09 year (since the year was underway then the crash happened) and most people were already in the admissions pipeline for 2009-10. But starting with 2010-11, and continuing through 2013-14, faculty raises haven't kept up with inflation. At the same time, some benefits have been cut, and health insurance premiums have gone up, even as the school has absorbed a greater share of the increases than the employees.

This leads to either very unhappy faculty, or faculty leaving for schools that will pay them more money. My kids' school is finally saying to their faculty that it's time they start getting raises again. Nothing huge, but at least it's something.

[Anonymous]

This issue can not be fully understood by just focusing on one year's rationale for increase. Over the last 15 years, the price-tag of these schools has increased at a considerably faster rate than:

1. Teacher's salaries
2. Healthcare costs (the current fashionable excuse)
3. Inflation
4. Area median income growth

Unlike other products and services that we buy, all of which have a technology, physical plant and labor cost component to them, private schools do not benefit from productivity gains from a reduced labor component (the student-teacher ratio is sacred) and they have mostly chosen to increase their physical plant cost in a facilities arms race. They hold out technology as the savior; that blended learning will be the key in the future to controlling cost. But, there is very little evidence of this happening now as schools are very slow to depart from the traditional classroom model.

While there is perceived safety in the short run by sticking with the rest of the herd, the winners in the long run will adapt and adopt new ways of doing business.

1. Alternative classrooms that take advantage of public resources like museums and parks
2. Strategies for sharing physical resources with other schools (e.g. shared athletic facilities and teams - do Maret and Sidwell really need separate mediocre football teams?)
3. Blended teaching environments that leverage teachers' time, thereby reducing the central cost component of providing the service
4. Use of alternative lower-cost teachers to supplement and reinforce what is taught by the primary in the classroom (retired professionals, for example)

I am not an expert and my examples might be ridiculous to those with experience in the field. I offer them only to suggest that something has to change.

[Anonymous]

Every independent school I know of has open board meetings and invites parents to attend and observe. So it is easy to learn about the budget and the factors that drive tuition increases. There is nothing hidden.

I can't imagine there are very many families that would cotton to the suggestion to use lower cost teachers or higher student-teacher ratios or dropping sports. We pay a small fortune because we want these special things for our children. What are you paying for?