Anonymous wrote:Terrible behavior by Sandy Springs. People will forever refer to Sandy Springs as the Quaker school that sues poor black people.

What is the point of suing this woman? She's broke. It looks like Sandy Springs wants the sick pleasure of seeing her declare bankruptcy.

I am not Quaker but I work with their national organizations. I won't be surprised if this comes up in meetings next week.

The board and staff and parents at Sandy Springs should all be ashamed of themselves. They are nothing but predators, preying on a single mom with no money but high hopes for her wonderful child. What they did to her is unconscionable. It's time for SSFS to shutdown.

Quoting Mr. Bumble, there are times when "The law is an ass." this is one of them.

Why doesn't the school provide every parent applying for pre school with a notice that no financial aid is available for prek? Preferably, that notice should be signed by and parent applying for preschool for their child. It IS on the website--but NOT on the page regarding financial aid. At least I couldn't find it. See for yourself https://www.ssfs.org/admission/tuition-value/financial-aid The only place I could find that info was on the frequently asked question page. If you go to this page https://www.ssfs.org/admission/frequently-asked-questions and then click on the link re financial assistance, you'll see words to the effect that financial aid is available from K-5. It does NOT say specifically it isn't available for pre school. Obviously, that's inferred, but...
Frankly, I think the school buried this info as much as it could.

How the heck did the school THINK this woman could pay????

One thing I'd like to know--did the woman apply for financial aid? When? If she actually went through the process of applying and nobody told her she was ineligible before she signed the contract, then I think the school is at fault again.

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).

That is the legal crux of it. If services are not provided, what is the definition of acquiescence in the contract and responsibility for the entire cost of services? Is it simply a signature on a piece of paper? Is it a sum of money (deposit) proving one's engagement in a more concrete fashion?

I think this is debatable from a legal perspective. But the woman is poor and doesn't have great legal representation, and the school, despite its financial woes, has money to throw at this particular problem and employs an aggressive law firm well versed in contract enforcement.

I hope she files an appeal and wins a drastic reduction of financial liability. She does have the responsibility of reading and understanding her entire contract, but this private school really pushed the limits of contract enforceability. It would have been a better look to settle for less money.

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).

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The woman profiled got incredibly unlucky. A school not in financial turmoil may have let her slide but she happened to be working with a school in trouble and who can’t afford to lose a single dollar “owed”. Legally I understand, though ethically it’s awful. Maybe this article helps her find a Good Samaritan willing to help her.

The school must have paid at least $10k in legal fees, and now the harm to its reputation is going to be much more severe. It’s likely that the school will never raise funds the way it did this year again and will close. so good job guys I guess?

As I wrote weeks ago on one of the Sandy Springs threads, that school is probably not going to survive. Schools in that predicament have a tiny chance of surviving to begin with, but with the various bad decisions made on the financial front, it shows that their administration isn't very skilled in financial matters. The bad press is probably not going to sink them further, because such news aren't, by their nature, widely disseminated (even with an article in the Post). But of course it doesn't help with that very small number of families who were considering that school and who have read that article.

And I agree with the general sentiment that even though it may be legal, it doesn't seem fair that a family can be on the hook for an entire year of tuition even when they did not pay a deposit and did not attend. The contracts and their early deadlines are indeed predatory. DC private schools exist in a bubble where their services are in such high demand that they can force families into these types of financially abusive situations. It's not right.

Anonymous wrote:There is a huge piece of information missing from this article. SSFS does not start giving financial aid until Kindergarten. This is stated on their financial aid page and has been for years. This child would have been in PK, so financial aid was never going to be an option. Between the parent's lack of reading the contract before signing, and an apparent lack of financial aid research, I fail to see how the school is at fault.

No doubt that the school is legally correct and that the parent was unsophisticated and naive about how things work. But that doesn't change the school's moral culpability, IMO.

Anonymous wrote:There is a huge piece of information missing from this article. SSFS does not start giving financial aid until Kindergarten. This is stated on their financial aid page and has been for years. This child would have been in PK, so financial aid was never going to be an option. Between the parent's lack of reading the contract before signing, and an apparent lack of financial aid research, I fail to see how the school is at fault.

+1

I’m sorry for her situation, but this is all on the parent.

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 contracts are very straightforward, actually. They state exactly what you owe, when it is due, what the timeline is for cancelling, and options for tuition insurance. For grades where financial aid is available, your aid package is stated clearly, and you get a secondary letter indicating what your financial aid amount is. Preschool does not qualify for financial aid, it says so pretty obviously on the website in several places. (But also, you don’t get financial aid without applying for it…)

There is a huge piece of information missing from this article. SSFS does not start giving financial aid until Kindergarten. This is stated on their financial aid page and has been for years. This child would have been in PK, so financial aid was never going to be an option. Between the parent's lack of reading the contract before signing, and an apparent lack of financial aid research, I fail to see how the school is at fault.

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.

Most privates don’t make you sign a contract before you know aid either. I’ve never heard of that. I can’t read the article, but is that really what happened?

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.

Anonymous wrote:The woman profiled got incredibly unlucky. A school not in financial turmoil may have let her slide but she happened to be working with a school in trouble and who can’t afford to lose a single dollar “owed”. Legally I understand, though ethically it’s awful. Maybe this article helps her find a Good Samaritan willing to help her.

The school must have paid at least $10k in legal fees, and now the harm to its reputation is going to be much more severe. It’s likely that the school will never raise funds the way it did this year again and will close. so good job guys I guess?

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the law has a grey area when it comes to contract enforcement in cases of unpaid deposits or services not provided, but decades of precedent in school lawsuits has solidified existing law into a very pro-business direction. Precedent is NOT on the families' side.

People can argue forever that the defendant should have read her contract, or that the other family at Landon should have better understood the Principal's offer to "keep a spot open" for their kid... but ultimately, from a moral perspective, it stinks for a school to be so aggressive when the student did not even benefit from classes.

This is extreme capitalism, essentially. Financial might is right.

What's interesting here, from a DCUM parent perspective, is which private schools are aggressive and which are not. Maybe it has to do with the ethics of each administration; but it probably also has to do with basic math and which schools are on shaky financial ground, or perceive themselves to be on same.

I think it’s nuts that the precedent says the school has no duty to mitigate.