Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
why is suing a Black person any worse or any better than suing a White person? You'd better check your racism.
Why are you so fragile?
LOL, I have been called many things in my day, but this is the first time I have been called fragile! The WAPO story and the majority of DCUM readers portray Blacks as needing special treatment under the law, as if they are somehow less intelligent. How would you feel if some commercial real estate White guy signed a contract so his spoiled entitled lax bro son could go to Landon, but then tried to back out because he didn't understand the contract he signed? Trust me, rich White guys are just as capable of making dumb mistakes as poor Blacks, but race should decide how the law applies to them? We all have two eyes for reading and a brain for thinking, regardless of skin color.
Anonymous wrote:I know the school is a business, but this area is in economic downturn. I’m sure they can just let 26k go.
Anonymous wrote: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:Wow, how can the Quakers be affiliated in any way with SSFS?
I think it is completely reasonable to read that enrollment is not complete unless you put down a deposit. She never put down a deposit so a reasonable person world conclude her child wasn’t enrolled.
And how is it reasonable to send an email thay says: 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.
How is that legal? The email should be regardless whether or not Teagan attends you will be liable for tuition.” How does the school get to withdraw her and her mother still has to pay? If they claim she reserved a space and needs to pay for it then why wasn’t that space open to her all year?
Can she declare bankruptcy since she has -$140 in her bank account and owes 27k?
Anonymous wrote: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:According to the WaPo article:
This parent signed the contract without reading all the fine print, on the strength of another parent telling her that they had received financial aid. After she signed, she realized there was no financial aid for preschool. However she received an email from the school saying that enrollment was not complete until they received the deposit, so she thought that not paying the deposit would be sufficient to avoid paying tuition. It was not.
If you read the article, it becomes apparent that this parent accumulated comprehension mistakes. She also looked for county programs for help with tuition, but realized it did not apply to private schools only after receiving an award.
This is what happens to the most vulnerable. They are not able to protect themselves against predatory methods. It's sad that humans prey on other humans.
Personally, I think this parent should be liable for some, but not all, the tuition. The school has shown itself to be extremely harsh against a fragile family. That's a really bad look. I hope public outcry changes the outcome here.