Employee children aren't all poor! I teach at my kids big 3 bc I want to, most definitely not bc I have too.

But I won't lie sometimes I feel awkward rolling up in my luxury SUV.

If you think teachers are getting 100% tuition remission, you're crazy. I know folks from many area privates, and have applied to several. I haven't heard of anywhere that gives full remission.

My school does offer a small remission benefit, but otherwise, we apply for financial aid just like everyone else.

I have heard that some schools are revisiting their policies. Possibly giving less remission, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Beyond creating massive employee loyalty and satisfaction, what are the other benefits to the school as a whole?

Economic diversity within the student body?

You may not think that's a benefit, though.

Umm, most of the faculty kids I know have one parent who is either a lawyer at a major law firm, in investment banking, or otherwise in finance. That is how the other spouse affords easily to be a teacher in a private school. If diversity is what you are looking for, why not just give financial aid equally across the board and see who shows up for class?

That's certainly not the case at our school. I'm sure it varies from place to place. There may be more teachers like that at the primary/elementary level. Thinking of the Upper School faculty at our school, the "other spouse" often seems to work in government, academia, non-profit world -- the teacher is either an equal financial partner or even the primary breadwinner.

Anonymous wrote:At a reception for admitted families, I was surprised by how many faculty and staff spoke about their children attending the school. At the reception itself, several staff members were also celebrating the admittance of their child or children, which is fantastic. But, it seemed like a whoooole lot of staff!
I have to imagine that staff are given full tuition remission or tuition benefits.
Is anyone familiar with this practice? How common is it in private schools in the area? Beyond creating massive employee loyalty and satisfaction, what are the other benefits to the school as a whole?

If you read threads worried about faculty retention and turnover at various schools, you can see that a benefit that promotes retention can be significant. It also brings some more middle class kids into the mix, which helps ameliorate the growing "barbell effect" of a student body made up of either those who are quite affluent or are receiving substantial aid. For any sort of tuition remission/benefits program to really be accepted by the community at large, the school should hold the kids to the same admission standards -- it's not good for anyone when a faculty child struggles and is in over her/his head. There probably are a higher percentage of faculty/staff kids in schools with elementary schools -- most children can "keep up" and it's harder to rely on objective criteria. I do know that at some of the very good schools that admit at early grades, it is not uncommon for a faculty child to leave after elementary or middle school if it is clear that the Upper School would not be a good academic fit.

In terms of how common it is, as others have said, there are old threads about this. 100% tuition remission is actually rare, and the range of benefits varies from school to school.

At our school, remission is limited to $5k for only one child, which is less than a 20 percent discount for that one child.

Anonymous wrote:

Beyond creating massive employee loyalty and satisfaction, what are the other benefits to the school as a whole?

Economic diversity within the student body?

You may not think that's a benefit, though.

Umm, most of the faculty kids I know have one parent who is either a lawyer at a major law firm, in investment banking, or otherwise in finance. That is how the other spouse affords easily to be a teacher in a private school. If diversity is what you are looking for, why not just give financial aid equally across the board and see who shows up for class?

In general, I think it has been very good for our school community to have faculty and staff children in the classrooms. I do think that it helps to bring the community together and to open up lines of communication.

I am a bit annoyed, though, about one situation. There is one teacher whose daughter clearly has behavioral problems. As far as I can tell, teachers simply tolerate it. The mother is not a class lead teacher, but runs one of the enrichment programs and is a specialist. So, she sees and has relationships all across the school. Perhaps this results in most of the faculty having a professional relationship with her, and maybe not wanting to rock the boat. While it is not the same issue at all, I am perhaps more frustrated by this because the teacher mom runs a program that is widely regarded by parents as the worst program at the school. She is polite, has a dignified demeanor, and a put together look. Unfortunately, though, she seems to be wholly incompetent at her job. I do not say this lightly as several parents I know well have Masters or PhD level degrees and this teacher's area of work, and all agree that she is woefully behind on best practices for teaching, and on the actual substance. It is hard to say whether people are more hesitant to raise this issue because her daughter is in classes with the rest of our kids. We all have to pick our battles, and who wants to pick a battle with a woman who is the parent of a child in our kids class, especially when the child is already more difficult than most?

What I find interesting is that people don't seem to mind that teachers, at least specialist, are allowed to teach their own children in the classroom. But, if a parent wants to have a teacher tutor their child, or give guitar or violin lessons, that is not allowed while the student is one of thecteacher's students. I understand the principles involved. But isn't the potential bias a child parent would have much greater than that of a tutor? Isn't there more of a danger of teachers kids being favored because other teachers don't want to engage in conflict with their peer teachers?


Again, overall I think it's a great thing that faculty and staff kids are at the school. And I would not change our policies of supporting that. I think we should be more aware, though, of possible Ramifications, and that the school, and parents, need to in sure that nobody, whether a faculty or staff kid, or a violin student, is treated preferentially.

Beyond creating massive employee loyalty and satisfaction, what are the other benefits to the school as a whole?

Economic diversity within the student body?

You may not think that's a benefit, though.

I like it. I'd feel awkward if I were talking to a teacher who couldn't afford to give her kids the same education that my kid was getting. Like those heartbreaking stories of nannies who have to use a substandard childcare for their own families.

I think I would be more concerned if most of the faculty/staff had their children enrolled elsewhere. It would give the impression that the education they were providing was not good enough for their own children.

I do think it’s out of hand. At one of DCs school half the class was staff/teacher kids. The teacher kids are very frequently favored and have behavior problems. I doubt some of them would have been admitted if they weren’t staff/teacher kids. The tuition remission varies at each school and some schools give a “favored” FA package to staff/teachers verses, or in addition to, tuition remission. What irks me is that I don’t think it attracts the best teachers because so many of the teachers at my DCs school leave after the child graduates or moves on. It just sends a message that they are only there to receive tuition remission and not to teach. I don’t know the answer, but I do think that not all staff/teacher kids should be admitted. There is a whole different set of rules that apply to staff/teacher kids and it gets old watching it.

Many schools no longer give full tuition remission to staff/faculty kids. At our last school, up to two kids could attend if both parents worked at the school. If only one parent worked there, one kid only got the tuition remission. At another school, faculty and staff could apply for financial aid like everyone else. Obviously, many did qualify for something since teacher salaries in private are fairly low.

Do a search. There are many threads about the incidence of tuition remission. It's not that common, and generally it is not an entirely free ride. 50% seems more common.

One important benefit I see is that teachers with kids in the school and other parents are "in it together." An "us versus them" mentality is less likely to take root.

At a reception for admitted families, I was surprised by how many faculty and staff spoke about their children attending the school. At the reception itself, several staff members were also celebrating the admittance of their child or children, which is fantastic. But, it seemed like a whoooole lot of staff!
I have to imagine that staff are given full tuition remission or tuition benefits.
Is anyone familiar with this practice? How common is it in private schools in the area? Beyond creating massive employee loyalty and satisfaction, what are the other benefits to the school as a whole?