Keep the Poor Students in Poor Schools

[Anonymous]

Nope, he'd be nouveau riche or a parvenu. 2 million a year is not "upper middle class" even in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Unless your child scored none wrong on the ERB, pipe down. Your school is only giving FA to bright kids and is only doing it so that their test scores will make the rest of the school look good. No one is being "given" any thing. It is the brain power of these bright kids that earns your school its reputation, maintains its reputation and, later largely establishes the intellectual environment in which your child will be educated. My DC gets a lot of aid and spends most of his class time graciously helping his classmates who " don't understand".

Boy, I wish this were the case at my school. The family I know of has several bright and several not so bright children. One of which is a sheer terror and has punched children without any repurcussions. I think children like these probably will end up reinforcing the very stereotypes that they are trying to get rid of.[/quote

And what exactly are those stereotypes?

Sorry, I don't know anyone who has so many children. You say that , "the family that I know of has several bright and several not so bright". Two is a couple, three is a few, four is several. In order to have "several bright kids" AND "several not so bright kids" in one family, said family must have at minimum 8 children. Who in Washington has 8 children? No one in private school, that is for sure.No one west of RCP has 8 kids, unless Jolie-Pitt have moved to town. Not even counting step kids. No way. Deciding to have a 3rd child in Washington is a bold decision. In most cases it is one that precipitates a necessary move to the MOCO of FFX suburbs as that 3rd child prices most families out of Private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No snark here, just genuinely trying to understand. For the PP who talked about keeping private schools "private" or anyone else who opposes FA in all forms, a couple of questions...
Presumably a school without FA would only have students in something like the top 5% of households in terms of SES. Is that the ideal for you and why?
Can you see any drawbacks to that scenario? If not, do you see your child having meaningful exposure to people in other SES brackets? If so, where? If not, do you see any problems with that?
(asking as a full freight parent who supports FA for a variety of reasons)

I pay for private school because I want my child to be with children of like minded parents--emphasis on education, respect, good manners. Placing children of a different SES that do not behave nicely, have the same values can foster resentment in their non FA peers. And like Obama said about bussing kids around...at the end of the day they have to come back to their home and deal with the problems there.
If a school gives FA to children with like-minded families and that are ready for the academic
rigor then I have no problem with itt. I only have a problem when they use these minorities as tokens...it's not good for them or for the school.

Wow. You are completely out of touch. Please tell me where your children go to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do understand the resentment others feel because so many families, like you, think FA is a right. But, why stop at thinking your child deserves the same education that others receive? Why not go to a Mercedes dealer and ask for a discount because other DCs are “afforded” one. Why not go to a realtor and ask for a discount on a house because other DCs are “afforded” a large house? Good public education is a right. Private education is not a right. The reason why we are "afforded" the education is because we can afford it.

You clearly do not understand the history of America. People in American very rarely are able to move up the social structure - it is a myth. Why would you stand in the way of someone trying to better themselves. I hope we are not neighbors b/c I would never want to live near anyone as uneducated as you.

My dad has a 6th grade education. He is 91, black and born in a rural part of VA. He busted his ass to send me to college and now I am a lawyer. I don't have any generational wealth. I have enormous student loans. I've never had anything given to me and or any family to help me. Even if my dad could have gone to college, he would not have been able to go to any state universities. They didn't accept black people. Therefore, I would not have even had the advantage of getting into college based on my parents attending. That means that even though I have a college education, I certainly do not have the advantages that many people on this list serv have.

I doubt that you have the same story. You don't know what the story is for people who apply for financial aid. In addition, just be happy that you are not poor.

There is a warped sense of entitlement to this post. Your story, as admirable and as sad (wrt your father) as it is does not *entitle* you to financial aid.

Not PP but if the school offers her Financial Aid then Yees, she is entitled to it. Again, be upset at the schools.

I don't think the lawyer above has asked for or received any FA for his/her DC. 2nd above poster has poor reading comprehension and/or a knee jerk intellect( or lack thereof)
What some people on this forum don't seem to GET is that Private schools do not give FA to be nice or even for purposes of social equity. Private schools give FA to maintain two things that they need: non-profit tax status AND a rigorous academic environment.There simply are not enough rich and really smart kids. Put whatever kind of social spin on it they want and try to get families to contribute to the FA fund to preserve their endowment all they can, it is in the end a business decision to give FA . I challenge the above poster: find a poor AND dumb kid in your DC's class, and double check that neither parent is an alum or a high profile family ( fame or money)or have a parent who teaches at or works at the school in some capacity. What you are decrying: the poor dumb kids on a full FA grant, ruining your DC's pristine school will not be found among your DC's class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yes. I am paying 27,000 a year and that is what private school is supposed to be PRIVATE Public school is everywhere. If you cannot afford private, then go to public

Ha ha, that is funny. I bet you look at average SAT scores and college placement when choosing a school though. If your DC's teacher spent all her time on remedial reading you would NOT be happy, right. Who do you think keeps the academic bar high ? Smart kids are given an incentive to enroll in form of FA. Not all lower middle class kids are rocket scientists and not all rich kids are dumb, dull and dim witted, but what you DON"T have being admitted to a private school is a dumb AND poor kid, so don't worry : your largess is saved for the bright kids who are asked to tutor yours each day in class for free and the school is being "generous" to your kind as well by admitting them in the first place. Perhaps your child scored a 99.9% on the WISC and got none wrong on the ERB, but I doubt it. Unless that is true, your DC was "given" a spot as well.

While I find the use of the word "dumb" offensive - I do know that kids with average scores are admitted with FA.

Well, not at my DC's Big 3 school. DC has been there for a long time and I know most of her cohort very well by now. Yes, there are some kids of average intellect, but for the most part they are the children of Board members. Every child has to offer something of interest to the school. Perhaps you have never taken the time to get to know the family you are making assumptions about ? Perhaps that AA family that you assume is getting FA is headed by a parent who went to the school as a child and on to Juliard from there. Maybe some other kid who ticks you off has a famous father and you just don't know it because you tend to make friends only through your social set. It is also possible that you are at one of the far less selective schools. From the way you whine about donating to the FA fund, like a classless boar, all of the above may be the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes

FA is given for two reasons: 1) to allow the private schools to maintain their non-profit status . 2) to maintain their high academic standards. There is no free lunch being given; it is a straight quid
pro quo.

Great info here.

I'm a tax lawyer, this isn't quite true. A private school doesn't have to give out any scholarships to maintain its nonprofit status. To be a nonprofit, you just can't have owners or shareholders that receive profits or dividends, or have excessive business related or profit generating activities. To be a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization where donations (but not tuition) are deductible for donors, private schools are subject to a non-discrimination review by the IRS because so many private schools were created in reaction to desegregation. You just have to have a non-discriminatory policy that is publicly disseminated and show evidence that the school follows the policy. Easy ways to prove the school follows the policy to show enrollment of racial minorities and/or hiring of racial minorities as teachers or administrators. The easiest way to get racial minorities students to enroll, especially in areas where their are not a lot of minorities or where the tuition is very high, is to offer scholarships, but it isn't required.

A school can have 0 minorities as students or staff and still prove non-discrimination and many do, particularly in rural areas. But if you live in an area where the local population is majority black and you don't have any black students and have rejected most black applicants, you are probably going to have issues under an IRS review.

Most private schools offer FA because it is the right thing to do, not because of IRS rules.
<pst scjpp;s


Well, thank you to the tax lawyer above for the details on this. I take a more cynical view. Private schools desperately need to maintain their non-profit status for financial reasons and their social equity policy, though some in their admin. may believe and advocate from their hearts, FOLLOWS their financial needs , it does not lead them.What may have been a win/win and a boon to them financially in the initial years after B vs BoE, diversity in return for non-profit status,and all that money it allows them to shelter, quickly wa sjust absorbed into their budget. A budget tey then spent right up to the limit on. Our society as a whole has gotten accustomed to over borrowing and over spending. This is the teet of the last couple of generations. Private schools : secondary and universities have become addicted to credit and , in some cases, using paper money to make payrol.

The head of Sidwell's Board in the 1950's was against admitting non-whites because he feared inter-racial dating, and said so, albeit with the board room door closed. These schools did not over night become liberal and righteous. They did, over night , with the help of a good tax lawyer :) realize what a non-profit status could allow them to do financially.

[Anonymous]

Does the IRS regularly review non-profit books or does the IRS just randomly audit?

[Anonymous]

Can a school pretend to be diverse by just showing that it has minority teachers and students ( non-power positions) or does the IRS look to see racial diversity on the Board of Trustees as well ?( decision makers)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I pay for private school because I want my child to be with children of like minded parents--emphasis on education, respect, good manners. Placing children of a different SES that do not behave nicely, have the same values can foster resentment in their non FA peers. And like Obama said about bussing kids around...at the end of the day they have to come back to their home and deal with the problems there.
If a school gives FA to children with like-minded families and that are ready for the academic rigor then I have no problem with itt. I only have a problem when they use these minorities as tokens...it's not good for them or for the school.

fancy way of saying you are buying a more expensive peer group
A peer group where the kids get dunk on shampagne instead of beer

Either way, reminded me of the way the people used to justify segragation in the south

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nope, he'd be nouveau riche or a parvenu. 2 million a year is not "upper middle class" even in DC.

annual income: 1.8 Million

annual Debt:

mortgage: 150,000
tuition( 3 kids in pre-k, 1st and 3rd grade: 110,000/yearly
student loans debt( self and wife): 600,000 total ( ? yearly)
long term care for parents( both husband and wife's):: 200,000/yearly
taxes: ?? 200,000 / year
malpractice insurance: 300,000/year
2 car payments: 50,000/year
savings for kids college: 75,000/year

Not exactly rich, huh.Get the picture ?

[Anonymous]

Upper Class:

Net Worth: 550 million:

Real Estate: 120 million ( one private island and 6 homes on 5 continents
Dividend wealth: 22 million yearly
Profession: None
Occupation: sits on 20 Boards
Fully funds 6 trusts
last genration who worked: 4 generations ago

[Anonymous]

Why give out any FA if the Big 3 schools can fill their Pre-K and K class with qualified applicants (99+ % WPPSI, Full Pay)?

[Anonymous]

You're all nuts, especially the lady/gentleman above who doesn't want her kids mixing with lower classes. I can't believe people like they exist anymore in the age group young enough to have school aged kids.

[Anonymous]

I'm not arguing that the old money person isn't upper class. And if you want to make a distinction between old money and new money, then fine, make it and call 2 million a year lawyer (whom I believe you just changed into a doctor making 1.8 million, but whatever) nouveau riche. But to call a person who is spending 110K (more than the HHI for over 85% of the US) a year on tuition alone "middle" anything is ludicrous. DC or not. Top 1% of earners has a lower boundary around 400K a year, so your example person is only in the "middle" of the top 1%. Even by the extremely broad definition Gilbert gives to upper middle class your person doesn't fit. For all the complaints about FA recipient entitlement, there sure seems to be a lot of class entitlement from posters in the upper strata of earners that is equally offensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, he'd be nouveau riche or a parvenu. 2 million a year is not "upper middle class" even in DC.

annual income: 1.8 Million

annual Debt:

mortgage: 150,000
tuition( 3 kids in pre-k, 1st and 3rd grade: 110,000/yearly
student loans debt( self and wife): 600,000 total ( ? yearly)
long term care for parents( both husband and wife's):: 200,000/yearly
taxes: ?? 200,000 / year
malpractice insurance: 300,000/year
2 car payments: 50,000/year
savings for kids college: 75,000/year

Not exactly rich, huh.Get the picture ?

Yes, rich.

The fact that someone chooses to spend huge amounts of their money on luxuries, like $30,000 preschool, and an insane mortgage, and cars that must cost a fortune (most people's cars cost less than $25,000, how can you spend $25,000 per car on just a payment? What on earth do you drive) doesn't make them not rich.

After all those expenses above you have like $600,000 a year. Many middle class families live on a quarter that, without housing, and cars, and college savings, and school already covered.