Where is the fat in private schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting how private school pricing is being framed like a requirement when families are choosing into this model. If it doesn’t align for you, the area public schools are pretty solid, along with plenty of other school options.

That’s true, at the some time it doesn’t mean that price gauging is fine.

The elite private schools already colluded in 2021 and that was detected by the justice department.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given how much better kept and better run private schools seem to be, with smaller class sizes, I think the administrative salaries are justifiable.

But should they be paid considerably more than the teachers, who are the ones directly doing the work?

If a school had to do without its administrators or its teachers for a week, which would be the more noticeable absence? Doesn’t that speak to the value of their jobs?

If the teachers left for a week, the administrators would hire new ones. Yes, I would like to see teachers be paid more. No, I don’t have a problem with administrators being paid well.

No, the school would shut down without its teachers. The school can function without its administrators.

You pay for instruction, which is provided by teachers.

The whole question is silly. Clearly either would be a crisis. But administrators would go find the teachers that want to work. Teachers would have no motivation to hire administrators initially, until something got bad and they realized they were in over their heads with running a school. Then… they’d promote from within. The new leaders would claim much larger salaries and hire new teachers to replace themselves. Back to where we started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you compare to Catholic schools that charge and actually operate on ~15K/student, you realize that the fat is in the facilities and admin pay. Catholics school buildings are usually owned by the parish, so that is “free” to them. They’re not otherwise subsidized to the extent people think they are. For the most part they make do with less.

It's not easy to tell how the funding works for Catholic schools because churches get a lot of privacy, but for sure you can't just compare tuition rates and pretend that's spending.

They often also utilize the wildly underpaid labor of priests and nuns and often underpay non clergy employees as well... it's just not comparable financially

The few (Arlington Diocese)!Catholic schools we have visited do not have any nuns (but did a long time ago) and do not have clergy teaching anything other than the religion classes. There must be some somewhere, but not at any Catholic ES near us.

True. No nuns or clergy at any of the schools we have attended. Does the PP know what they are talking about?

Lol nothing but religion class, but don't know what I'm talking about. Yes my darling, I know and am Catholic/Catholic educated/my mother was a Catholic school teacher and have many close family friends who are current Catholic school teachers. They are mostly used in administrative positions these days but that is still underpaid labor and typically Catholic school teachers are underpaid as well. The ones who don't, you'll see it in the tuition.

So you are walking back your “often”?

Not at all, I'm pointing out that even in your rebuttal you pointed to the accuracy of my statement. You are ridiculous in your defense. Catholic schools pricing can't be compared to other independent schools because they are set up completely differently and rely on underpaid people to run them. And everyone got offended because they aren't exclusively nuns and priests teaching which is NOT what I said. In fact, you all gave away that you do see nuns and priests in the building, which confirms that my statement was accurate, but you wanted to put a caveat around it prove what exactly? It is just a different game. Take the win, your tuition is lower and other private schools can't compete because they don't have the same fundamental structure. It isn't a negative critique of you that you have a more affordable system. It's just a fact.

I don't know why you're harping on about Catholic school teachers, nuns, whomever being underpaid. This is true at most all independent schools. Yes, even the ones where tuition is 60k.

My kids’ ADW Catholic school has 0 nuns or priests teaching (or doing background admin 😂) and they pay 85% of what MCPS pays its teachers while only charging ~15K a year. They get about 30K TOTAL from the archdiocese each year and a free building that they have to pay to maintain.

There is plenty of fat to cut from any school that charges 60K. The Catholic schools show that, and so do the other private independents in other areas of the country that only charge 25-40K.

I think we are in agreement. I was arguing with the person who talked about classes still being taught by nuns and priests, which I'm sorry but they aren't! I don't know what salaries are like now because I quit, but made 30K a year, plus room and board as a teacher at an expensive boarding school (not Catholic). SIL topped out at Catholic school making around 50-55K, but that was after 20 years of teaching. DS's public school kindergarten teacher makes over 90K and she has been teaching around 15 years.

I agree with you that there is some fat to but cut in independent schools if anyone desires that, but it's not from the teachers' salaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somehow I don’t think Catholic k-8s are charging the “exorbitant” tuition OP refers to.

Where do the $60k/yr schools put all that money?

That’s not the point. Many Catholic schools are not paying a living wage to their teachers - that is why the tuition is so cheap.

Many non-Catholic independent schools are not paying a living wage, either.
I taught at an independent school and as far as I could see the extra money went to:

-More admin than necessary (And many were overpaid. I remember HOS invited staff to a political fundraiser poolside at his $15 mil house )
-EdTech (1:1 iPads preK-12th)
-Facilities. By facilities, I mean a flashy STEM lab and 2 new athletic fields. My classroom in the humanities wing had no windows and several old leaky pipes that were patched but never painted over. My salary was about 65% of what public school teachers make, and I obviously worked longer hours coaching, supervising after school clubs, and so on.

I chose to stay because I had more control over the curriculum and class activities, and because the kids were great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One the one hand the cost of tuition is exorbitant and the cost of building maintenance and teachers salaries is much lower.

Who is responsible for the excess costs?

My guess is that with more reasonable administrative salaries and more conservative financial aid policies the Tuition could be lowered by 20 percent.

Any other ideas about where the fat is coming from?

At most schools, the tuition covers about 80% of the actual costs to run the school, with donations usually making up the difference. Where is this fat you are talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One the one hand the cost of tuition is exorbitant and the cost of building maintenance and teachers salaries is much lower.

Who is responsible for the excess costs?

My guess is that with more reasonable administrative salaries and more conservative financial aid policies the Tuition could be lowered by 20 percent.

Any other ideas about where the fat is coming from?

At most schools, the tuition covers about 80% of the actual costs to run the school, with donations usually making up the difference. Where is this fat you are talking about?

Donations feed the fat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you compare to Catholic schools that charge and actually operate on ~15K/student, you realize that the fat is in the facilities and admin pay. Catholics school buildings are usually owned by the parish, so that is “free” to them. They’re not otherwise subsidized to the extent people think they are. For the most part they make do with less.

It's not easy to tell how the funding works for Catholic schools because churches get a lot of privacy, but for sure you can't just compare tuition rates and pretend that's spending.

They often also utilize the wildly underpaid labor of priests and nuns and often underpay non clergy employees as well... it's just not comparable financially

The few (Arlington Diocese)!Catholic schools we have visited do not have any nuns (but did a long time ago) and do not have clergy teaching anything other than the religion classes. There must be some somewhere, but not at any Catholic ES near us.

True. No nuns or clergy at any of the schools we have attended. Does the PP know what they are talking about?

Lol nothing but religion class, but don't know what I'm talking about. Yes my darling, I know and am Catholic/Catholic educated/my mother was a Catholic school teacher and have many close family friends who are current Catholic school teachers. They are mostly used in administrative positions these days but that is still underpaid labor and typically Catholic school teachers are underpaid as well. The ones who don't, you'll see it in the tuition.

So you are walking back your “often”?

Not at all, I'm pointing out that even in your rebuttal you pointed to the accuracy of my statement. You are ridiculous in your defense. Catholic schools pricing can't be compared to other independent schools because they are set up completely differently and rely on underpaid people to run them. And everyone got offended because they aren't exclusively nuns and priests teaching which is NOT what I said. In fact, you all gave away that you do see nuns and priests in the building, which confirms that my statement was accurate, but you wanted to put a caveat around it prove what exactly? It is just a different game. Take the win, your tuition is lower and other private schools can't compete because they don't have the same fundamental structure. It isn't a negative critique of you that you have a more affordable system. It's just a fact.

I don't know why you're harping on about Catholic school teachers, nuns, whomever being underpaid. This is true at most all independent schools. Yes, even the ones where tuition is 60k.

My kids’ ADW Catholic school has 0 nuns or priests teaching (or doing background admin 😂) and they pay 85% of what MCPS pays its teachers while only charging ~15K a year. They get about 30K TOTAL from the archdiocese each year and a free building that they have to pay to maintain.

There is plenty of fat to cut from any school that charges 60K. The Catholic schools show that, and so do the other private independents in other areas of the country that only charge 25-40K.

I think we are in agreement. I was arguing with the person who talked about classes still being taught by nuns and priests, which I'm sorry but they aren't! I don't know what salaries are like now because I quit, but made 30K a year, plus room and board as a teacher at an expensive boarding school (not Catholic). SIL topped out at Catholic school making around 50-55K, but that was after 20 years of teaching. DS's public school kindergarten teacher makes over 90K and she has been teaching around 15 years.

I agree with you that there is some fat to but cut in independent schools if anyone desires that, but it's not from the teachers' salaries.

Oh, we are in agreement on both the nuns/priests no longer teaching and that the fat to be cut is not teachers’ salaries! I was just adding in what our school does now, in response to the person that thinks Catholic schools are still run like the 50s. Our school made a goal to raise teachers’ salaries to 85% of MCPS bc we were having problems with teacher retention. It’s been much better since then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given how much better kept and better run private schools seem to be, with smaller class sizes, I think the administrative salaries are justifiable.

But should they be paid considerably more than the teachers, who are the ones directly doing the work?

If a school had to do without its administrators or its teachers for a week, which would be the more noticeable absence? Doesn’t that speak to the value of their jobs?

If the teachers left for a week, the administrators would hire new ones. Yes, I would like to see teachers be paid more. No, I don’t have a problem with administrators being paid well.

No, the school would shut down without its teachers. The school can function without its administrators.

You pay for instruction, which is provided by teachers.

The whole question is silly. Clearly either would be a crisis. But administrators would go find the teachers that want to work. Teachers would have no motivation to hire administrators initially, until something got bad and they realized they were in over their heads with running a school. Then… they’d promote from within. The new leaders would claim much larger salaries and hire new teachers to replace themselves. Back to where we started.

Nope. It’s easier to find administrators than teachers. You know how many teachers have their admin degrees, even in private schools? There are tons of teachers looking to jump to admin to get out of the classroom. Meanwhile, there’s a teacher shortage.

And the best run school I’ve ever worked for had teachers at the helm. Every administrator was a teacher and still kept a foot in the classroom. If only ALL schools operated that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given how much better kept and better run private schools seem to be, with smaller class sizes, I think the administrative salaries are justifiable.

But should they be paid considerably more than the teachers, who are the ones directly doing the work?

If a school had to do without its administrators or its teachers for a week, which would be the more noticeable absence? Doesn’t that speak to the value of their jobs?

If the teachers left for a week, the administrators would hire new ones. Yes, I would like to see teachers be paid more. No, I don’t have a problem with administrators being paid well.

No, the school would shut down without its teachers. The school can function without its administrators.

You pay for instruction, which is provided by teachers.

The whole question is silly. Clearly either would be a crisis. But administrators would go find the teachers that want to work. Teachers would have no motivation to hire administrators initially, until something got bad and they realized they were in over their heads with running a school. Then… they’d promote from within. The new leaders would claim much larger salaries and hire new teachers to replace themselves. Back to where we started.

Nope. It’s easier to find administrators than teachers. You know how many teachers have their admin degrees, even in private schools? There are tons of teachers looking to jump to admin to get out of the classroom. Meanwhile, there’s a teacher shortage.

And the best run school I’ve ever worked for had teachers at the helm. Every administrator was a teacher and still kept a foot in the classroom. If only ALL schools operated that way.

And at that “best run school” all the administrators were being paid below market rate because they felt obligated to not earn more than the teachers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One the one hand the cost of tuition is exorbitant and the cost of building maintenance and teachers salaries is much lower.

Who is responsible for the excess costs?

My guess is that with more reasonable administrative salaries and more conservative financial aid policies the Tuition could be lowered by 20 percent.

Any other ideas about where the fat is coming from?

Did the private schools ask you for help with their budgets?

They are private. They can do whatever they want.

You don’t get to tell them how to manage their money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One the one hand the cost of tuition is exorbitant and the cost of building maintenance and teachers salaries is much lower.

Who is responsible for the excess costs?

My guess is that with more reasonable administrative salaries and more conservative financial aid policies the Tuition could be lowered by 20 percent.

Any other ideas about where the fat is coming from?

At most schools, the tuition covers about 80% of the actual costs to run the school, with donations usually making up the difference. Where is this fat you are talking about?

Sounds like you are buying into the school rhetoric. Tuition covers 80 % of the costs to run the school so they say. Have you actually drilled into the numbers? There is a problem with tuition at DC private schools because the parents are too timid to challenge the status quo and are social climbers. Look at private schools in New York and Boston--ones that far out rank DC schools are cheaper, e.g. Boston Latin, etc. A pp said collusion, absolutely. And 500 k for headmaster salary, try more like twice as much at around 1 million. Quite frankly, I want to see more for my almost 70 k a year in tuition. With kids in hs only a few more years to go, so kind of stuck. But I'm disgusted by the tuition and parents and the schools acting as if it is gauche to talk about the expense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One the one hand the cost of tuition is exorbitant and the cost of building maintenance and teachers salaries is much lower.

Who is responsible for the excess costs?

My guess is that with more reasonable administrative salaries and more conservative financial aid policies the Tuition could be lowered by 20 percent.

Any other ideas about where the fat is coming from?

Did the private schools ask you for help with their budgets?

They are private. They can do whatever they want.

You don’t get to tell them how to manage their money.

Jesus who are you people? As high paying consumers we absolutely have input as to how schools manage their money as does the board. You are part of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One the one hand the cost of tuition is exorbitant and the cost of building maintenance and teachers salaries is much lower.

Who is responsible for the excess costs?

My guess is that with more reasonable administrative salaries and more conservative financial aid policies the Tuition could be lowered by 20 percent.

Any other ideas about where the fat is coming from?

Did the private schools ask you for help with their budgets?

They are private. They can do whatever they want.

You don’t get to tell them how to manage their money.

Jesus who are you people? As high paying consumers we absolutely have input as to how schools manage their money as does the board. You are part of the problem.

Oh please, you're not on the board.
And consumers vote with their feet: if you think it's overpriced, go elsewhere. You don't get to decide that a product other people willingly pay for is fat that should be cut.
- DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given how much better kept and better run private schools seem to be, with smaller class sizes, I think the administrative salaries are justifiable.

But should they be paid considerably more than the teachers, who are the ones directly doing the work?

If a school had to do without its administrators or its teachers for a week, which would be the more noticeable absence? Doesn’t that speak to the value of their jobs?

If the teachers left for a week, the administrators would hire new ones. Yes, I would like to see teachers be paid more. No, I don’t have a problem with administrators being paid well.

No, the school would shut down without its teachers. The school can function without its administrators.

You pay for instruction, which is provided by teachers.

The whole question is silly. Clearly either would be a crisis. But administrators would go find the teachers that want to work. Teachers would have no motivation to hire administrators initially, until something got bad and they realized they were in over their heads with running a school. Then… they’d promote from within. The new leaders would claim much larger salaries and hire new teachers to replace themselves. Back to where we started.

Nope. It’s easier to find administrators than teachers. You know how many teachers have their admin degrees, even in private schools? There are tons of teachers looking to jump to admin to get out of the classroom. Meanwhile, there’s a teacher shortage.

And the best run school I’ve ever worked for had teachers at the helm. Every administrator was a teacher and still kept a foot in the classroom. If only ALL schools operated that way.

And at that “best run school” all the administrators were being paid below market rate because they felt obligated to not earn more than the teachers?

They were paid about 15% more because they had summer hours.

It may be hard for you to believe, but the best people to run a school are teachers. When you have a bunch of non-teachers trying to dictate educational policy, you’re left with low teacher morale, poor teacher retention, and ineffective instruction in the classroom. Been there, done that.

But admin who continue to teach? The policies make sense. Educational outcomes are stronger because school leadership is invested in the work of the classroom. Observations and evaluations mean something because they come from people who demonstrate they know the job and can also do it themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The annual financial reports are publicly available. I just looked up our school and about 65% is faculty salaries and benefits, 12% is facilities, 10% goes towards growing the endowment. Tuition only covers about 80% of operating budget.

What about FA?

I don’t think FA really “costs” the school anything. It’s not like the school is giving out checks. Those students are just using the same school resources (staff, facilities) and not bringing in any tuition money. Or not as much money, as most FA students typically still pay something.