Where is the fat in private schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yup. Plenty of families have more than enough cash to throw at a school so they can raise tuition and maintain the status quo the families want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yup. Plenty of families have more than enough cash to throw at a school so they can raise tuition and maintain the status quo the families want.

True, but that doesn’t mean there is no fat. For instance you can have a leaner admin staff and give more financial aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yup. Plenty of families have more than enough cash to throw at a school so they can raise tuition and maintain the status quo the families want.

True, but that doesn’t mean there is no fat. For instance you can have a leaner admin staff and give more financial aid.

Unless the families value what the admin staff do. You seem to resist the idea that services provided by the administration are part of what people pay for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS

[Anonymous]

Admin make teachers lives difficult and make teachers scared that they are going to lose their job. I don't recommend teaching as a profession. Just skip that step and just be an admin. Yeah, I know the logic does not make sense. Welcome to education!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yup. Plenty of families have more than enough cash to throw at a school so they can raise tuition and maintain the status quo the families want.

True, but that doesn’t mean there is no fat. For instance you can have a leaner admin staff and give more financial aid.

Unless the families value what the admin staff do. You seem to resist the idea that services provided by the administration are part of what people pay for.

A hell lot of fat over there…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS

No, it’s not. Teachers perform the work of the school. It’s that simple.

Teachers sell the school, too. They are responsible for the strength of the programs, the level and engagement of instruction in the classroom, and the overall climate of the school. What you buy into with your tuition dollars is built and maintained by the teaching staff, not people removed from it in offices.

Some schools understand this. Some don’t. Guess which type of school attracts strong teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS

No, it’s not. Teachers perform the work of the school. It’s that simple.

Teachers sell the school, too. They are responsible for the strength of the programs, the level and engagement of instruction in the classroom, and the overall climate of the school. What you buy into with your tuition dollars is built and maintained by the teaching staff, not people removed from it in offices.

Some schools understand this. Some don’t. Guess which type of school attracts strong teachers.

Families care about: teachers, athletics, clubs, facilities, student life, community, college placement, administrative responsiveness and brand.

Schools that have the best teachers and neglect the rest will not be in as much demand as schools that understand families look for a complete package.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS

No, it’s not. Teachers perform the work of the school. It’s that simple.

Teachers sell the school, too. They are responsible for the strength of the programs, the level and engagement of instruction in the classroom, and the overall climate of the school. What you buy into with your tuition dollars is built and maintained by the teaching staff, not people removed from it in offices.

Some schools understand this. Some don’t. Guess which type of school attracts strong teachers.

Families care about: teachers, athletics, clubs, facilities, student life, community, college placement, administrative responsiveness and brand.

Schools that have the best teachers and neglect the rest will not be in as much demand as schools that understand families look for a complete package.

I also care about schools that spend their money carefully and don’t waste it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS

No, it’s not. Teachers perform the work of the school. It’s that simple.

Teachers sell the school, too. They are responsible for the strength of the programs, the level and engagement of instruction in the classroom, and the overall climate of the school. What you buy into with your tuition dollars is built and maintained by the teaching staff, not people removed from it in offices.

Some schools understand this. Some don’t. Guess which type of school attracts strong teachers.

Families care about: teachers, athletics, clubs, facilities, student life, community, college placement, administrative responsiveness and brand.

Schools that have the best teachers and neglect the rest will not be in as much demand as schools that understand families look for a complete package.

I also care about schools that spend their money carefully and don’t waste it.

You’re one of 900.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS

No, it’s not. Teachers perform the work of the school. It’s that simple.

Teachers sell the school, too. They are responsible for the strength of the programs, the level and engagement of instruction in the classroom, and the overall climate of the school. What you buy into with your tuition dollars is built and maintained by the teaching staff, not people removed from it in offices.

Some schools understand this. Some don’t. Guess which type of school attracts strong teachers.

The biggest BS I was calling on you is that the administrators were working for 15% more than the teachers. Was it a little K through three with 45 kids? Maybe. Was it a super legit school with hundreds of kids? No way!
I’m sure that some great administrators were also excellent teachers. And I do know that some administrator still teach a class or two. But you’re painting with a very broad brush when you don’t leave from for the possibilities of excellent people that don’t fit your criteria precisely.
And as somebody above pointed out, a great school for $60k a year offers much more than just great teachers. And read what I said carefully. I absolutely believe in great teachers being vital. But the whole system has to be held together by administrators. It’s just a fact. And if you don’t like how much they earn compared to you, maybe you should try to become one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS

No, it’s not. Teachers perform the work of the school. It’s that simple.

Teachers sell the school, too. They are responsible for the strength of the programs, the level and engagement of instruction in the classroom, and the overall climate of the school. What you buy into with your tuition dollars is built and maintained by the teaching staff, not people removed from it in offices.

Some schools understand this. Some don’t. Guess which type of school attracts strong teachers.

The biggest BS I was calling on you is that the administrators were working for 15% more than the teachers. Was it a little K through three with 45 kids? Maybe. Was it a super legit school with hundreds of kids? No way!
I’m sure that some great administrators were also excellent teachers. And I do know that some administrator still teach a class or two. But you’re painting with a very broad brush when you don’t leave from for the possibilities of excellent people that don’t fit your criteria precisely.
And as somebody above pointed out, a great school for $60k a year offers much more than just great teachers. And read what I said carefully. I absolutely believe in great teachers being vital. But the whole system has to be held together by administrators. It’s just a fact. And if you don’t like how much they earn compared to you, maybe you should try to become one of them.

I’ll stay in the classroom, but thank you for the offer. I happen to be very good at what I do and that’s where I belong. Doing good work.

And, since you asked, it was a large high school. The admin salaries reflected only the fact they were 12 month employees instead of 10. And each administrator still taught at least one class. The school saw the value of the teacher and the organizational chart reflected that. There were no excessive admin positions with bloated salaries.

Schools are not held together by people in offices. They are held together by the people doing the work. All you need to know to see that’s true is the answer to this:

If you don’t have the teachers, the school can’t open. If you don’t have the administrators, it can be business as usual.

[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.

No, you don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, you don’t.

Interesting. If a service is subpar lets say in an airline, people normally complain, and sometimes they receive a refund. And if enough people do that, eventually the service improves. Normal procedure in a company. So a school is a whole different animal that no one can complain about? Maybe in North Korea.