Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure that I would consider GDS "progressive" in a ordinary sense. The list of truly "progressive" schools usually includes:

The Avalon School
The Barrie School
Edmund Burke School
Emerson Preparatory School
The Field School
Green Acres School
The Nora School
Parkmont School
Sandy Spring Friends School
Thornton Friends School
Washington Waldorf School

GDS tries hard to be like Sidwell. I don't see a truly progressive school worrying about "competition."

How exactly does it try hard to be like Sidwell? Where is this competition? In your head I am guessing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't try to compare. Schools are not remotely comparable with respect to prestige and college exmissions.

Here are the schools on Barrie's matriculation list and not on GDS's:

Delaware Valley College
Kalamazoo College
Prince Georges Community College
Ohio Northern University

Here are four schools on GDS's list and not on Barries:

Harvard
MIT
Stanford
Yale

GDS doesn't publish a "list," but nice try. GDS probably has better matriculation, but not from grade school - the PP was discussing Barrie School for elementary and transfer to GDS. If the brightest Barrie School students are transferring to high schools like GDS, you wouldn't see their "exmissions" on any Barrie School list. The schools have very comparable progressive environments.

+1 the fact that a small number of GDS kids (most with connections) have gone on to some top schools should be irrelevant to most families. GDS and Barrie School are mor similar than different.

Let's not kid ourselves...the biggest majority of kids going to top schools are "kids with connections" at ALL the schools that DCUM consider prestigious. Yes even Sidwell, St Albans, Maret, etc. To single out one school is silly.

Barrie!

Does anyone have 2014 matriculation from Barrie or GDS?

.

The discussion of tuition lawsuits and college admissions is worthwhile, but more serious issues affect this school. The culture of the upper school students is not a healthy one and the safety of the students is often very questionable, especially from their own class mates. They've kept their enrollment from disappearing, but admitting students who don't belong has sent others who do belong to different schools. It's a dangerous place now.

I doubt most schools limit their maximum recovery to a minimal deposit. Imagine how you would feel if your DC was accepted and you paid a deposit to “secure” a spot in the class only to be told, in August, sorry we found a student we prefer to your DC – so here’s your deposit back. That would be unworkable, right? There must be some commitment to make the process work. The purpose of these liquidated damages clauses is to make people live up to their commitment, no to enrich the school. No school wants to be in the position of having to sue parents, but, sadly, there are bad apples out there – people who would be the first to sue if the school pulled the same trick on them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: ... So in Maryland (where most of the cases are) - you should think twice before breaching an enrollment contract with a liquidated damages clause. ...

Yes, I'd think twice before signing an enrollment contract with a liquidated damages clause if I thought I might want to pull out of the school later. And if I saw that a particular school makes it a habit of suing several parents every year, I'd think three or four times extra before signing with that school!

I agree. What sort of creep would commit to enrolling in a school (and possibly preventing another from attending that school) while actively pursuing another "better" option? There should be a special place in hell for such selfish people and I, for one, applaud schools that do their part to restore sanity.

Don't most schools handle this issue by requiring a moderate deposit (say $2,000) which a family loses if it pulls out after the deadline? Does Barrie instead have a liquidated damages clause that requires payment of the full tuition amount? That would seem really excessive.

I hear your point about "possibly preventing another from attending that school," and that would be a bad thing if it happens. But as I read the court case posted here, Barrie DID fill the student's spot, and yet still pursued the family for the full tuition cost regardless. So I don't think Barrie gets to wear the white hat here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: ... So in Maryland (where most of the cases are) - you should think twice before breaching an enrollment contract with a liquidated damages clause. ...

Yes, I'd think twice before signing an enrollment contract with a liquidated damages clause if I thought I might want to pull out of the school later. And if I saw that a particular school makes it a habit of suing several parents every year, I'd think three or four times extra before signing with that school!

I agree. What sort of creep would commit to enrolling in a school (and possibly preventing another from attending that school) while actively pursuing another "better" option? There should be a special place in hell for such selfish people and I, for one, applaud schools that do their part to restore sanity.

Anonymous wrote: ... So in Maryland (where most of the cases are) - you should think twice before breaching an enrollment contract with a liquidated damages clause. ...

Yes, I'd think twice before signing an enrollment contract with a liquidated damages clause if I thought I might want to pull out of the school later. And if I saw that a particular school makes it a habit of suing several parents every year, I'd think three or four times extra before signing with that school!

Anonymous wrote:PP here I should have said the people think their contract shouldn't be binding or they knew it was and didn't think the school would go after them.

Correct. Parents commit to enrolling their child (and agree to the liquidated damages clause) and then choose to enroll their child in a different school (often off a waiting list) and hope that the school will ignore the liquidated damages. The assumption is that if the school finds another student to replace my DC, I shouldn't have to pay the amount I agreed to pay. If you read the precedential court decision, you'll see that ONE judge agreed with the "no harm, no foul" argument, but the majority did not. So in Maryland (where most of the cases are) - you should think twice before breaching an enrollment contract with a liquidated damages clause. Not sure what the law in DC is, but it's not surprising that Barrie would rely on the precedent that they won.

There is another factor, more selective schools would not have as many students defaulting on enrollment contracts since they would often be the first or second choice. Barrie is often the second choice for parent who want to enroll their DC in GDS. GDS may be a backup for parents who hope to get into Sidwell, but for many progressive parents looking for a secular coed school, GDS is the first choice. So, I'm guessing that GDS ahs a much higher "yield" and doesn't need to address the enrollment contract breach issue.

PP here I should have said the people think their contract shouldn't be binding or they knew it was and didn't think the school would go after them.

PP, no, the parents know they have to pay, but if there are no consequences for missing the payments, they didn't pay. Now schools implement automatic payment, so it doesn't happen as much.
I don't know how many families are not sued, but if you read the lawsuits the sued are families who think that their contract wasn't binding and walk after the binding date, but before school starts. It's not families who have attended the school and leave mid-year. Barrie is just not the top choice for a lot of people and if they get another option, they take it.

Anonymous wrote:12:28 PP here: Very few families leave md-year. It's as I posted previously, they either don't think they have to pay or they make a new school decision and don't think their contract is binding.

I don't understand the "don't think they have to pay" comment. Are you saying many families just think Barrie is free, and are surprised to learn they actually have to pay the tuition? I must be misunderstanding you. That seems wild. I'd like to be on that no-pay plan too!

How many families leave each year? I assume some percentage of those leaving actually are able to get out before the binding date, and some other percentage of departing families pay as required without any need for a lawsuit. I'd have imagined only a small fraction of departing families gets in a situation where a lawsuit is necessary. And for most other schools, that appears to be true -- very few lawsuits. But Barrie files lots of lawsuits (~10 new ones in 2013 alone). If Barrie is suing 10 departing families in 2013, how many others left without getting sued? Another 20 families? More?

12:28 PP here: Very few families leave md-year. It's as I posted previously, they either don't think they have to pay or they make a new school decision and don't think their contract is binding.