Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the Board supposed to do? The reality is that the major driver of costs at educational institutions (schools and colleges) is personnel - salary and benefits. We know the cost of benefits continue to soar. And there's no way to give faculty a raise without increasing tuition. There just isn't. Faculty at these schools are getting 2 and 3 percent raises, and have been for at least a decade now. Not exactly a ton of money. Show me a good school or college that generally isn't increasing its costs every year.

I'm in the doughnut. We get decent (though not huge) financial aid and scrimp to send our kids to private school. No we don't take vacations, and yes our 2 cars have over 300,000 miles on them combined. Neither of my kids has, or will have, their own car. But they are happy and doing great. If I have to spend my money on something, I'd rather spend it on their tuition than a new car. So does this year's tuition increase mean we've got to figure out how to save a little more money? Yeah, it does. Oh well, it's worth it to us.

The first thing the Board shoukd do is to close down the FA office, and charge the same fees to everyone.

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. And the salaries of these folks doesn't increase 4% a year. But what does the board care? Let them eat cake. and let the school become more douchey.

F the board.

Anonymous wrote:What is the Board supposed to do? The reality is that the major driver of costs at educational institutions (schools and colleges) is personnel - salary and benefits. We know the cost of benefits continue to soar. And there's no way to give faculty a raise without increasing tuition. There just isn't. Faculty at these schools are getting 2 and 3 percent raises, and have been for at least a decade now. Not exactly a ton of money. Show me a good school or college that generally isn't increasing its costs every year.

I'm in the doughnut. We get decent (though not huge) financial aid and scrimp to send our kids to private school. No we don't take vacations, and yes our 2 cars have over 300,000 miles on them combined. Neither of my kids has, or will have, their own car. But they are happy and doing great. If I have to spend my money on something, I'd rather spend it on their tuition than a new car. So does this year's tuition increase mean we've got to figure out how to save a little more money? Yeah, it does. Oh well, it's worth it to us.

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. And the salaries of these folks doesn't increase 4% a year. But what does the board care? Let them eat cake. and let the school become more douchey.

F the board.

Anonymous wrote:I do blame the boards of these schools though. Most of the boards are made up of wealthy individuals who do not understand the squeezing of the middle class. And by middle class, I mean people making like $200K. Try sending two kids to SFS on that income. For people who take home $10,000 a month, you have to assume that a minimum of $2000 goes to rent, $1000 for food and incidentals, and maybe another $1000 for health insurance, car insurance, car repairs, etc. That leaves $6000 a month if you buy nothing at all (no clothes, no vacations, no camps) and it is not enough to put two children into private school. Those people (and those who make a bit more) are getting squeezed out and it's hurting the schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Decades ago the super rich to which these schools cater were fewer in numbers and less wealthy.

The other running theme in this thread is that Sidwell has changed, and not for the better. We may have to "get over it" as some will say, but it is narrowing the space between Sidwell and other local schools.

The "joy problem" to which Bryan Garman has referred is that he sees SFS as a less joyful place to be compared to when he was there as a teacher.

As tuition increases, many parents see the decision to send their kids to SFS as more transactional in nature -- they're looking for a higher ROI in the form of more a prestigious college decal to slap on the back of their Audi or BMW. This translates into more pressure on kids (albeit greater indulgence of them as well) and less joy.

Anonymous wrote:Decades ago the super rich to which these schools cater were fewer in numbers and less wealthy.

The other running theme in this thread is that Sidwell has changed, and not for the better. We may have to "get over it" as some will say, but it is narrowing the space between Sidwell and other local schools.

The "joy problem" to which Bryan Garman has referred is that he sees SFS as a less joyful place to be compared to when he was there as a teacher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in independent schools and the rising costs are going to shut us down. It's unrealistic to think that we can continue to raise the prices, year after year, and NOT have it squeeze everyone... remember tuition doesn't even cover the full cost of the entire program, so you have to give ON TOP of that. Everyone is always wondering about the "Big 3" in DC - and every one of them (whether it's STA, NCS, Maret, GDS, Sidwell) will hit $50K before too long. These schools (and I work for one) are in an arms race...nicer gyms, nicer science labs, etc... and it's madness. Because the teachers are NOT getting huge raises year after year...we get minimal raises, just like the average parents out there. And I wouldn't blame Bryan G. for this one...I'd blame the BOARD at every one of these schools...getting greedier every tuition increase along the way.

As a parent who is working hard to afford tuition, one of the really bothersome facts for me is that the money really is not resulting in a better quality of life for my child's teachers. It is the small classes, warm environment, and teachers that I care about. Also extras like having a great art teacher and program. But that it not the same thing as building new state of the art facilities that are nicer than my college.

+1. And what we hear is that the money that was donated was earmarked for capital projects: everyone likes to have their name on something; paying for maintenance and salaries isn't so sexy. But, new facilities come with new staff, new coaches, new faculty ... and maintenance. So the idea that the personnel costs are somehow unrelated to expensive capital improvements is ridiculous.

It's the same at universities, btw.