Anonymous wrote:Maybe there needs to be a class action against all private schools that they need to start adopting the college model.

The vast majority of private schools are not similarly situated as colleges financially. Plus the class sizes are much smaller so the relative impact on their annual budget of one student not enrolling is larger.

All that said, SSFS acted reprehensibly.

A class action? You mean a law? A rule? None of that would be legal.

They could adopt the policy and even agree to a standard, but these are private businesses without federal funding.

Maybe there needs to be a class action against all private schools that they need to start adopting the college model.

For college, you pay a deposit to secure your acceptance but if you decide to not pay tuition then you lose your spot and that’s the end of it.

Even an ED acceptance doesn’t have anything to do with actually showing up on campus in the Fall.

Private schools have to just deal with “summer melt” the same way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t sign contracts if you can’t pay your bills.

Unsophisticated people are not really able to understand a contract like that especially if it is very unintuitive. The mom says that she assumed it would be something more like a month or two of tuition. She also thought that it would be reasonable to make her acceptance contingent on the aid package - and the fact that they made her sign the agreement without knowing the aid was pretty exploitative. Even colleges don’t do it that way.

The mom said that she didn't read the contract. It doesn't matter if it was "unintuitive" if she didn't read it. She assumed it said something that it didn't. Not sure how that's the school's fault.

The article also said that there was an opportunity for her to withdraw after the financial aid decision, but that she didn't do so. Again, not sure why the school should be responsible for that.

People typically don’t see the relationship between a religious private school and a lower income parent as a pure caveat emptor predatory situation where the school exerts all its lawful leverage to its pure advantage. Also even though I am a lawyer I was surprised to learn that there is strong precedent in Maryland that private schools have zero duty to mitigate. Every other context I know of the contracting parties have a duty to mitigate. She was not at all crazy to belie be it would be like the daycares she worked at (one or two months, a reasonable length of time to cover the gap in finding a new student). Also she was not unreasonable to think they were already on notice and had a duty to mitigate. This is different from pulling a child mid-year where it might be tough to get another family.

You keep talking about a duty to mitigate like it is a magic elixir, when it has very little to do with the factual predicates of this case. It has nothing to do with the mother's understanding of the contract, and its terms. It has nothing to do with her failure to comply with the notice requirements. Perhaps it played a role in the outcome of the litigation, but only *after* it was established that she was in breach.

Or are you seriously suggesting that the mother based her decisions and actions on her belief that the school had a duty to mitigate?

I imagine the mom wouldn't have use the words "duty to mitigate" but yeah - it's absolutely reasonable that she thought that the school had plenty of time to get another child. Remember she didn't pay the deposit! it's not like she called them the first day of school after paying deposit, filling out health forms, etc., etc. By not paying the deposit, she thought she had given them plenty of time to find another student or make appropriate classroom arrangements - ie, to mitigate the damage.

While absolutely true and I think the school acted in a reprehensible way, keep in mind that the school was in the process of failing due to lack of enrollment. Said differently, I doubt there was another kid that was in line to enroll.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t sign contracts if you can’t pay your bills.

Unsophisticated people are not really able to understand a contract like that especially if it is very unintuitive. The mom says that she assumed it would be something more like a month or two of tuition. She also thought that it would be reasonable to make her acceptance contingent on the aid package - and the fact that they made her sign the agreement without knowing the aid was pretty exploitative. Even colleges don’t do it that way.

The mom said that she didn't read the contract. It doesn't matter if it was "unintuitive" if she didn't read it. She assumed it said something that it didn't. Not sure how that's the school's fault.

The article also said that there was an opportunity for her to withdraw after the financial aid decision, but that she didn't do so. Again, not sure why the school should be responsible for that.

People typically don’t see the relationship between a religious private school and a lower income parent as a pure caveat emptor predatory situation where the school exerts all its lawful leverage to its pure advantage. Also even though I am a lawyer I was surprised to learn that there is strong precedent in Maryland that private schools have zero duty to mitigate. Every other context I know of the contracting parties have a duty to mitigate. She was not at all crazy to belie be it would be like the daycares she worked at (one or two months, a reasonable length of time to cover the gap in finding a new student). Also she was not unreasonable to think they were already on notice and had a duty to mitigate. This is different from pulling a child mid-year where it might be tough to get another family.

You keep talking about a duty to mitigate like it is a magic elixir, when it has very little to do with the factual predicates of this case. It has nothing to do with the mother's understanding of the contract, and its terms. It has nothing to do with her failure to comply with the notice requirements. Perhaps it played a role in the outcome of the litigation, but only *after* it was established that she was in breach.

Or are you seriously suggesting that the mother based her decisions and actions on her belief that the school had a duty to mitigate?

I imagine the mom wouldn't have use the words "duty to mitigate" but yeah - it's absolutely reasonable that she thought that the school had plenty of time to get another child. Remember she didn't pay the deposit! it's not like she called them the first day of school after paying deposit, filling out health forms, etc., etc. By not paying the deposit, she thought she had given them plenty of time to find another student or make appropriate classroom arrangements - ie, to mitigate the damage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Washington Post reporter from the article is listed as an "Interested Person/ Party" on the court case. I can't understand how anyone at the school though that this would turn out in any other way than it did. So while the mother didn't have a lawyer, she did have a reporter on her case.

By the way, SSFS is also a defendant in another active court case. The case is titled, "E. L. vs. SANDY SPRING FRIENDS SCHOOL, INC." of type "Tort - Negligence" filed on 05/08/2025. I do wonder what that is about.

There also was another contract court case that was settled around the same time as the article for $16,818.29.

I guess the other person had some money so it didn’t end up in the papers.

I guess lesson learned - [url]don’t go after ppl who don’t have money in the bank to shell out.[b]

Seems like a reasonable lesson.

Anonymous wrote:The Washington Post reporter from the article is listed as an "Interested Person/ Party" on the court case. I can't understand how anyone at the school though that this would turn out in any other way than it did. So while the mother didn't have a lawyer, she did have a reporter on her case.

By the way, SSFS is also a defendant in another active court case. The case is titled, "E. L. vs. SANDY SPRING FRIENDS SCHOOL, INC." of type "Tort - Negligence" filed on 05/08/2025. I do wonder what that is about.

There also was another contract court case that was settled around the same time as the article for $16,818.29.

I guess the other person had some money so it didn’t end up in the papers.

I guess lesson learned - don’t go after ppl who don’t have money in the bank to shell out.

Anonymous wrote:The Washington Post reporter from the article is listed as an "Interested Person/ Party" on the court case. I can't understand how anyone at the school though that this would turn out in any other way than it did. So while the mother didn't have a lawyer, she did have a reporter on her case.

By the way, SSFS is also a defendant in another active court case. The case is titled, "E. L. vs. SANDY SPRING FRIENDS SCHOOL, INC." of type "Tort - Negligence" filed on 05/08/2025. I do wonder what that is about.

There also was another contract court case that was settled around the same time as the article for $16,818.29.

“I can't understand how anyone at the school thought that this would turn out in any other way than it did.” <— the school didn’t think they’d get caught. Simple as that. But since they did it’s all about blaming the person who left and act like you’re appalled. Yeah, right. Not buying it.

Anonymous wrote:As long as you have a PACER account, isn't it easy to sign up as an "interested person" and receive copies of filings in any given case?

I honestly don't know. If that is true, then I guess the reporter just added herself to the case. I used https://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/ to find the court cases against SSFS and this website doesn't require an account.

As long as you have a PACER account, isn't it easy to sign up as an "interested person" and receive copies of filings in any given case?

The Washington Post reporter from the article is listed as an "Interested Person/ Party" on the court case. I can't understand how anyone at the school though that this would turn out in any other way than it did. So while the mother didn't have a lawyer, she did have a reporter on her case.

By the way, SSFS is also a defendant in another active court case. The case is titled, "E. L. vs. SANDY SPRING FRIENDS SCHOOL, INC." of type "Tort - Negligence" filed on 05/08/2025. I do wonder what that is about.

There also was another contract court case that was settled around the same time as the article for $16,818.29.

Anonymous wrote:Before the wapo article came out the new hos didn’t even know this was happening? Why didn’t he stop it then? Then wall didn’t need to publish what they did as the story would have been the school made it right in the end ….

Clearly it’s all about damage control with that school. How shameful

Correct.

Before the wapo article came out the new hos didn’t even know this was happening? Why didn’t he stop it then? Then wall didn’t need to publish what they did as the story would have been the school made it right in the end ….

Clearly it’s all about damage control with that school. How shameful

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry, but “I didn’t read the contract, I just assumed it would be fine” is not defensible. And a school just agreeing that ok fine, this time we won’t ask for the tuition because you didn’t read the contract would be ridiculously unfair to all the families that do read and abide by their contracts.

I'm not a contract lawyer, but I think it's arguable whether she accepted the contract, since she didn't pay the deposit (provide consideration).

Exactly-shame on SSFS.

Did the people who are defending the school actually read the article?

"Johnson learned only after adding her electronic signature to the Sandy Spring Friends contract that the school didn’t offer financial aid for preschool. A confirmation email said that “enrollment is not considered complete until you pay the deposit,” and she said she didn’t understand that she had a June 1 deadline to pull out."

I don't understand if she never paid any deposit how her child was considered enrolled?

The article continues:
In late August, the Sandy Springs controller sent Johnson an email: “As you know, the contract you signed is a binding legal document. However, we have yet to receive any payments.” Johnson wrote back less than an hour later, saying she could not afford the school. There was a back-and-forth — the comptroller said the head of school had to approve any withdrawals; Johnson responded that she hoped the school would “see it fit to withdraw our inquiry into this school.”
“If I could afford the tuition,” she added, “I would surely send Teagan there, therefore I certainly cannot afford to be held responsible for the full year and she not attend.”
The interim head of school responded the first week of September with a decision. Teagan could withdraw from the school. But because of the contract, her mother would remain liable for tuition. At the end of the email, before the headmaster’s name, was the sign-off “In Light.”

So what kind of crazy decision is that? The school thinks it is being so gracious to allow her to withdraw AND she yet still has to pay? If they are saying she is being withdrawn then why would a parent have to pay? Why are they not legally obligated to say - regardless whether your child attends preschool at our school or not anytime during the course of this school year, you are liable for a full year's tuition.

They sent her a bill for Sandy Spring Friends Preschool told her she owed $21,302.53 in tuition and fees, citing the agreement she’d signed. When she said she couldn’t pay, the school sued, tacking on 18 percent interest. The way it reads is this happened last August 2024 and the court case was April 2025. So why didn't the judge say, well since you are getting charged with interest and attorney fees $26,999, the school needs to offer you a space if you chose to send your child there the rest of the school year?

And if the school forgive the debt is the lawyer who sued her going to forgo attorney fees. (Mary Ellen Flynn, the attorney who represented the school, said most of the lawsuits involve parents failing to pay tuition after their children have attended classes. But in Johnson’s case, she said, Sandy Spring Friends wasn’t given enough notice.)

And 18% interest! $27,000 compounded yearly at 18% after 14 years (so just in time for the little girl to turn 18 and be ready to leave for college) is $273,975.59.