Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While there is clearly a wide range of incomes, I would guess that the typical non-financial aid family at one of the selective private schools earns at least $3-400k/year. So a 3% COLA is $9-12k - plenty to cover an addition $1-2k for tuition. Obviously families making half of that will have a harder time if they don't get financial aid, but there are very few families in that income range. Until there are more slots than applicants, there will be plenty of families lining up to pay tuition.

For the typical family earning this amount, paying tuition for two is tough as is. If we didn't have a $700K mortgage (then again, I'm not sure where we'd live- definitely not anywhere near our private) or save for retirement or college, we could swing these increases. As it stands, we're being priced out and are considering parochial or public. DH hasn't had a raise in over 3 years. The COLAs I've received are insubstantial. We just can't keep doing this.

Before anyone attacks the above scenarios for their high incomes, expensive houses, or difficulty in making enviable choices we should remember that these type of families are the bread and butter of the independent school movement. We all know families that can easily afford the recent tuition increases and still afford the annual ski vacation to St Moritz. That isn't the point. Independent school business models face the challenge of a smaller and smaller community of families who can afford their services, and the competition of improving publics/charters that bring their value proposition into greater focus/question. If I were running an independent school, the population that I would focus most intensely on would be the upper middle class. Not that the rich families and financial aid students matter less - it is just that the model is designed to naturally take care of these groups, whereas the full-fee paying, two working professional parent families seem to be stretched to the limit and without them the schools will become hollowed out.

Nope as wealth concentrates at the top and in cities, they will have more super wealthy families to choose from. They are loosing *their* middle class (people who make 200,000ish ) but the top teir earners in this area are doing fine (hence house prices) and those will become more and more of thier bread and butter.

Yes, but the problem is as the parents are often business people or lawyers, it changes the dynamic in the classroom. The offspring of Foreign Service officers and NIH scientists are oft times more intellectual, better able to contribute something unique to class discussion. It is a shame the independent schools have lost that group of kids. They are now in MCPS, at Wilson or in DC charters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While there is clearly a wide range of incomes, I would guess that the typical non-financial aid family at one of the selective private schools earns at least $3-400k/year. So a 3% COLA is $9-12k - plenty to cover an addition $1-2k for tuition. Obviously families making half of that will have a harder time if they don't get financial aid, but there are very few families in that income range. Until there are more slots than applicants, there will be plenty of families lining up to pay tuition.

Think you are a little clueless. Pretty tough to get FA if you are making $200k per year. Many people are not getting COLA's or any raise at all. ( I have not in 2 years) That is why the continuing 3-4% really hurts. Yes many businesses have costs but what business has seen their costs rise by 40% over 10 years ( a 4% increase every year for 10 years) except maybe for health care?

I suspect if that was the case they would not be able to stay in business,

Yes, as in all of the government employees. There are some very interesting people, well educated, with great kids but family income is $150k or so. They dig into retirement assets, family money to pay for private. No way is it coming from current income.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know about shrugging off increases at $400K. Two kids at 35/yr is a lot of money. We make $300K and have a hard time making the numbers work for two kids. We could make it work but only by not saving enough for college and retirement.

Yep. It gets increasingly tight and becomes increasingly unsustainable when looking at at number of years it's required along with college savings, etc. I'd argue that it's not really fiscally justifiable at this HHI unless you have a child with special needs or who wouldn't manage in public for some reason.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know about shrugging off increases at $400K. Two kids at 35/yr is a lot of money. We make $300K and have a hard time making the numbers work for two kids. We could make it work but only by not saving enough for college and retirement.

Agree. We make $275 and it is not possible to save for retirement, much less college, if we sent our kids to private.

I don't know about shrugging off increases at $400K. Two kids at 35/yr is a lot of money. We make $300K and have a hard time making the numbers work for two kids. We could make it work but only by not saving enough for college and retirement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Collegiate, Spence, and Trinity are $43k, Brearley is $42k, Horace Mann is $41k, and Chapin is $39k. The Big 3 have a bit of a cushion to catch up.

Apples and oranges. Cost of living overall is higher in NY, as are salaries.

+1- Top lobbyists and BigLaw partners don't earn near what top hedge fund managers and investment bankers bring in. Plus the population in NYC is much larger, so there is a larger pool of potential students.

It doesn't matter if you're making $400K as a lawyer/lobbyist or $4M in private equity, your ability to shrug off a couple thousand dollars in private school tuition increases is the same. NYC also has a lot more very expensive schools to match their larger population. The panic about private school tuition at places like SFS, GDS, STA, NCS is a psychological reaction. It doesn't have an economic basis. Since nearly everyone's child would do just as well going to Wilson, at some point you just have to admit to yourself that it is a luxury, not a necessity. And, we all have different levels of need/tolerance for conspicuous consumption.

We have kids in public and private -- they have different needs. They have all gotten very good educations (oldest from public now at an Ivy for those who care about these things -- we did not go to those schools, so we are not too wed to them). The primary difference I see in private is the personalization that occurs: the myriad ways in which teachers know students (most public school coaches do not teach academic courses), the amount of writing students are required to do because teachers have fewer students and, thus, are able to grade more papers, and the less chaotic environment, which I attribute almost entirely to size. Our kids in private (which we have done only for middle and high) need less chaos and more practice writing than our kids in public. But whether it is worth the money is really an individual decision based on the needs of individual kids. So we were willing -- at MS and HS to make different decisions for different kids. Our public school kids do not resent our private school ones (in fact our oldest told us he did not think his public school would be a good fit for one of his younger siblings). We have been clear that we are going to be good advocates for their getting the best education for them, regardless of where they are. All this is to say, it would not have been worth it for our two kids who went to public, as that environment served them very well, but it was absolutely worth it for our slightly less extroverted but bright and sporty youngest child.

Actually in most areas of the country public school teachers are paid more than private and have better benefits unless a teacher is getting tuition remission for his/her children. There are more opportunities for training and getting into administration in public as well.

One of the problems here is that most of the top schools have a 'policy' of trying to pay their folks in the top decile.

But the reality, by definition, is if all are in 'the top 10%' then all are 'average'

For kicks I read the moco teachers contracts. Sticker Salaries are 'low'.....but then you add in a masters, and get X more, coach a team, Y, more, defined benefit pension plan, summer off, etc. Whats driving the hikes is really comp.......and tons of more administrators and specialists both public and private.

Sometimes tuition rises because enrollment is declining. The same fixed costs need to be spread over a smaller base.

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure it's not lost on everyone, but increasing cost happens in Public schools too. So I was curious to look at the numbers for Alexandria City Schools where we live. (my son goes to private) Obviously I can't look at tuition cost for increases, instead I looked at the Actual Operating Budget year over year from 2001 through 2015 (2014 and 2015 numbers are Final, not Actual yet). The numbers were interesting, even including tough years 2010 and 2011 (which was due to the recession beginning in 2008) the average is almost 5% increase a year.

What does that tell me? The cost of education everywhere is increasing.

Year Total Operating Budget % Change
2001 $122,210,947
2002 $128,791,707 5.38%
2003 $135,194,040 4.97%
2004 $142,534,773 5.43%
2005 $152,144,178 6.74%
2006 $163,601,110 7.53%
2007 $181,000,000 10.63%
2008 $184,860,000 2.13%
2009 $193,612,000 4.73%
2010 $191,044,000 -1.33%
2011 $193,737,000 1.41%
2012 $204,930,000 5.78%
2013 $215,330,000 5.07%
2014 $227,334,000 5.57%
2015 $235,292,599 3.50%

For this to be more helpful , you would need to normalize it to a per student calculation. Private school have the ability to tightly control the growth in students. Publics do not have this same luxury.

I'm sure it's not lost on everyone, but increasing cost happens in Public schools too. So I was curious to look at the numbers for Alexandria City Schools where we live. (my son goes to private) Obviously I can't look at tuition cost for increases, instead I looked at the Actual Operating Budget year over year from 2001 through 2015 (2014 and 2015 numbers are Final, not Actual yet). The numbers were interesting, even including tough years 2010 and 2011 (which was due to the recession beginning in 2008) the average is almost 5% increase a year.

What does that tell me? The cost of education everywhere is increasing.

Year Total Operating Budget % Change
2001 $122,210,947
2002 $128,791,707 5.38%
2003 $135,194,040 4.97%
2004 $142,534,773 5.43%
2005 $152,144,178 6.74%
2006 $163,601,110 7.53%
2007 $181,000,000 10.63%
2008 $184,860,000 2.13%
2009 $193,612,000 4.73%
2010 $191,044,000 -1.33%
2011 $193,737,000 1.41%
2012 $204,930,000 5.78%
2013 $215,330,000 5.07%
2014 $227,334,000 5.57%
2015 $235,292,599 3.50%

Anonymous wrote:$300k+ HHI here, so no prospect of financial aid. We've loved our independent school, which our kids have been attending for 7 years. The tuition increase this year, on top of the increased cost of moving from a lower division to a higher division, means the price has ticked up enough to make it financially irresponsible for us to keep the kids there, especially with college on the horizon. So we're heading to our local public this fall--and three days after the decision was made, I am feeling relief more than anything else. Maybe a little excitement about spending a tiny bit of the 'saved' money on a summer vacation .

I feel the same way, it feels irresponsible to spend 40-50k on high school. Our public is a great option and I am having a hard time significantly better outcomes for private kids over puble.
We have not come to the same conclusion as you but probably will. What are your children thinking?

$300k+ HHI here, so no prospect of financial aid. We've loved our independent school, which our kids have been attending for 7 years. The tuition increase this year, on top of the increased cost of moving from a lower division to a higher division, means the price has ticked up enough to make it financially irresponsible for us to keep the kids there, especially with college on the horizon. So we're heading to our local public this fall--and three days after the decision was made, I am feeling relief more than anything else. Maybe a little excitement about spending a tiny bit of the 'saved' money on a summer vacation .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Collegiate, Spence, and Trinity are $43k, Brearley is $42k, Horace Mann is $41k, and Chapin is $39k. The Big 3 have a bit of a cushion to catch up.

Apples and oranges. Cost of living overall is higher in NY, as are salaries.

+1- Top lobbyists and BigLaw partners don't earn near what top hedge fund managers and investment bankers bring in. Plus the population in NYC is much larger, so there is a larger pool of potential students.

PP, you seam pretty smug . It reminds me of a joke heard in Moscow before the Ukraine issues made their economy tank:

" I see we have the same tie, how much did you pay for it ?"

Answer : $500

" You fool, I got mine for $1,000 "