snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Social Studies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old 02 September 2013, 11:15 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nonnieyrissa View Post
If you can afford to pay the tuition should you not also be able to provide transportation/childcare whether you work 80+ hours a week or more? There are 3 girls on scholarships, two of whom have single mothers that work full-time, and other parents step in to drive them to and from practice/games/extracurriculars, even chaperoning at times. I get why it is difficult for single parents with low-paying jobs, but for the most part, if it is not going to cause undue financial burden, should your child's education not come near the top of your priorities?
1) Your second sentence seems to partially contradict your first. Apparently people are expected to sign the agreement who can't afford to either pay the tuition or provide alternative transportation or childcare. In addition, incomes don't come in two widely separated levels, "enough to pay tuition and extra childcare and transportation" and "not enough to pay either". There might well be people who can scrape up the tuition, but barely, and don't have extra left over for taxicabs and people to accompany their kids back and forth.

2) It's nice that other parents will fill in to provide these services for those who can't. Do they also sign the agreement, not only for their own kids, but for those they give the rides to? Or does the agreement say, "We will do our reasonable best to get our child to all the games, and if we can't, others from the school agree to help with this"? I'd have a lot fewer objections if it says the latter; but that wasn't my impression.

3) I don't know how the school schedules those mandatory conferences and meetings. Are they scheduled with individual parents at times those parents agree that they can attend, and rescheduled if necessary if circumstances require? Saying "you must have x number of conferences with the teacher during the school year; the school will work with you to schedule those" is one thing; saying "you must show up at 3 PM on Friday" is something else entirely. Even saying "we will schedule these at individually selected times, but we will schedule them three weeks in advance despite the fact that your boss gives you your schedule the day before, and we're unwilling to reschedule on short notice" will be a major problem for many people.

4) I have an overall problem with requiring attendance at 100% of games, no excuses other than the sort of medical excuse that means the child is contagious or too ill to be taken anywhere at all. In practice, there are a whole lot of things in any individual's life that are important. Showing up at a game that your team might lose without you matters, yes. Showing up at your grandmother's 90th birthday, when she's ill and highly unlikely to make 91, and she lives halfway across the country, is also important. Taking care of your ill younger sister (presuming you're old enough) so that your mother can go to work instead of losing her job when she couldn't get a babysitter is also important. Going along to the vet. with your dying pet is also important. Observing the holidays of your specific religion and/or culture, which may not coincide with the majority's observations, is also important. Declaring, in advance, that the parents guarantee that showing up at the game will be, not "among the top of your priorities", but the absolute most important thing in the entire family's priorities, no matter what else happens in their lives, seems to me to be teaching the children the wrong lesson entirely.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 03 September 2013, 05:58 PM
nonnieyrissa's Avatar
nonnieyrissa nonnieyrissa is offline
 
Join Date: 16 July 2007
Location: Brooklyn/Hudson, NY/Rancho Cordova, CA
Posts: 2,554
Default

Yes, there are three people(likely in the whole school) that can't afford childcare/transportation yet are still expected to sign the agreements(parent and student). It was the school that asked the parents association to help them keep the agreements as two of the girls had singe working mothers that can not afford to hire someone to bring their daughters, so while they are pretty strict about the contracts, they also understand extreme circumstances(hint: a dying grandmother's birthday would fall within the extreme circumstances range). The reason for the agreement requiring 100% attendance is enforce-ability. If it says 75% of games then some parents will schedule vacations during the season, some will deem a good sale worth skipping a game. Sports are not mandatory(though they are encouraged and fulfill extracurricular requirements).

I get that it is possible for a person to scrape up enough for one thing, yet be unable to scrape up enough for another, but tuition is pretty high here, so I find it unlikely that someone could scrape it up and not be able to afford something else that is much, much cheaper. If someone does not feel that they can meet the agreement/contract, why not apply to another school?
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 03 September 2013, 06:06 PM
St. Alia St. Alia is offline
 
Join Date: 06 October 2010
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 877
Default

Public schools (at least those I'm familiar with) also require 100% attendance for games at the secondary level. We also expect 100% attendance for practices, but there is a little more flexibility there.

It's not that coaches won't excuse athletes for important events, but because we don't want parents scheduling vacations and the like during the season. It happens anyway, and sometimes it affects the ability of the athlete to compete in other competitions or letter in that sport.

Sports in my area have been increasing fees as schools continue to get budget cuts year after year. My district may end up cutting junior high level sports completely if we don't pass a levy this year (in addition to a ton of other things). We could be like one of the local private schools, I guess, and charge over $400 just to join the team instead of the $180 we currently charge. That's not including athletic gear or equipment.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 03 September 2013, 06:16 PM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nonnieyrissa View Post
I get that it is possible for a person to scrape up enough for one thing, yet be unable to scrape up enough for another, but tuition is pretty high here, so I find it unlikely that someone could scrape it up and not be able to afford something else that is much, much cheaper. If someone does not feel that they can meet the agreement/contract, why not apply to another school?
Sometimes a family member is willing to pay tuition for private school, but the parent is on their own for everything else.

As to your last question, I couldn't answer that. I found out the hard way that families who are not wealthy quickly become pariahs at a school such as you describe, no matter how hard they try to fit in, so I would never subject my children to that. Perhaps some parents want it for their kids so badly that they think they can make it work.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 03 September 2013, 06:59 PM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nonnieyrissa View Post
I get that it is possible for a person to scrape up enough for one thing, yet be unable to scrape up enough for another, but tuition is pretty high here, so I find it unlikely that someone could scrape it up and not be able to afford something else that is much, much cheaper. If someone does not feel that they can meet the agreement/contract, why not apply to another school?
Didn't you say there were scholarships available? Also, is the transportation the thing that is much cheaper? I'm a little confused.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 03 September 2013, 07:58 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
I found out the hard way that families who are not wealthy quickly become pariahs at a school such as you describe, no matter how hard they try to fit in, so I would never subject my children to that. Perhaps some parents want it for their kids so badly that they think they can make it work.
And very often it works out, particularly if the child has a special talent, either in sports or arts, or in getting past the snobbery of his/her peers. This is not to blame those who don't , as it really is a knack that is hard to learn, if it can be at all. It is just to say that one cannot assume that a child will be unable to fit in - sometimes they make it work, and some kids can't make it work in any school environment. Another big factor can be if there are one or a few kids in the school who make a point of welcoming and including the outsiders - people, even kids, with such grace exist.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 03 September 2013, 08:19 PM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,890
Default

Other parents are free to do what they like, but considering the cruelty of other children (and of parents who think a child is below their social station) I would not put a child through it. I would rather they put their effort into learning what they are at school to learn, rather than making them learn how to manuever in social circles that are not likely to accept them.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 03 September 2013, 09:06 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nonnieyrissa View Post
while they are pretty strict about the contracts, they also understand extreme circumstances(hint: a dying grandmother's birthday would fall within the extreme circumstances range). The reason for the agreement requiring 100% attendance is enforce-ability. If it says 75% of games then some parents will schedule vacations during the season, some will deem a good sale worth skipping a game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Alia View Post
Public schools (at least those I'm familiar with) also require 100% attendance for games at the secondary level. We also expect 100% attendance for practices, but there is a little more flexibility there.

It's not that coaches won't excuse athletes for important events, but because we don't want parents scheduling vacations and the like during the season. It happens anyway, and sometimes it affects the ability of the athlete to compete in other competitions or letter in that sport.
In other words, the agreement that's signed in both cases says 100% attendance, but in both the schools referenced it's understood by everybody that it doesn't mean 100% attendance, only that exemptions are supposed to be made on a case-by-case basis for "extreme circumstances" or for "important events"?

Why don't the agreements say that, then? It's perfectly possible to write an agreement which says "X will attend all games unless extraordinary circumstances prevent this. All exemptions must be approved by Y or Z, and must be approved in advance except in cases of emergency." Making the kids sign an agreement that says 100% when that's not what's actually being enforced doesn't strike me as a great thing to teach them, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nonnieyrissa View Post
If someone does not feel that they can meet the agreement/contract, why not apply to another school?
Maybe the family can't find a school that doesn't have such a contract. Maybe the only other school(s) they can find have massive disadvantages.

But in any case, even if there's no reason for any family in the area not to just go elsewhere, and even if all such families do go elsewhere without complaining: the school is still requiring students to sign an agreement requiring 100% attendance; thereby either expecting them to agree that a school game must under all circumstances be the most important thing in their lives, or, if exceptions are commonly made, teaching them that signing a contract doesn't mean that one expects to, or will have to, abide by the terms as they are stated in the contract. I think a) that either of those is a very bad lesson to be teaching and b) that if all those families that agree that either of those is a bad lesson go elsewhere, the school will be diminished for the students who do attend.

Last edited by thorny locust; 03 September 2013 at 09:09 PM. Reason: subject/object agreement. even, or perhaps especially, while disagreeing.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 03 September 2013, 09:33 PM
St. Alia St. Alia is offline
 
Join Date: 06 October 2010
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Why don't the agreements say that, then? It's perfectly possible to write an agreement which says "X will attend all games unless extraordinary circumstances prevent this. All exemptions must be approved by Y or Z, and must be approved in advance except in cases of emergency." Making the kids sign an agreement that says 100% when that's not what's actually being enforced doesn't strike me as a great thing to teach them, either.
Our forms do say that. I was simply adding that public schools (some, at least) also have expectations for 100% attendance and that there can be repercussions for not fulfilling that requirement. But, yes, our forms do state basically exactly what you stated.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 03 September 2013, 10:12 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,912
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HelloLlama View Post
That is how it works in your state. Don't assume it's the same everywhere. As has already been pointed out, several states (like Michigan) do not fund schools through local property taxes. They are funded entirely by the state. The only thing we can really raise money for locally is infrastructure and technology improvements. If a local family sends their kids to private school our district doesn't get that money.
But the school does get the family's taxes that go to the infrastructure and tech improvements. Since that can represent a pretty big chunk of $, I would say the public school is still benefiting from the families that send their kids to private schools.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 03 September 2013, 11:03 PM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,876
Default

Again, every district I'm familiar with does not get funding for students who live in the district but attend private school. The parents still pay property taxes, but the money does not go to the public schools.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 03 September 2013, 11:03 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Alia View Post
Our forms do say that. I was simply adding that public schools (some, at least) also have expectations for 100% attendance and that there can be repercussions for not fulfilling that requirement. But, yes, our forms do state basically exactly what you stated.
OK, then.

If the forms for the school nonnieyrissa's talking about also are phrased that way, then I withdraw much of my argument. But in that case, I don't see why nonnieyrissa didn't say so when I started to raise objections.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 04 September 2013, 01:02 AM
St. Alia St. Alia is offline
 
Join Date: 06 October 2010
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
But the school does get the family's taxes that go to the infrastructure and tech improvements. Since that can represent a pretty big chunk of $, I would say the public school is still benefiting from the families that send their kids to private schools.
Districts put up levies based on student enrollment and ask for the money they need for their population. Just because a family who has students in private schools pay taxes that go to public schools doesn't mean the district is getting extra money.

The same would be said of the grandma and grandpa who live in the district; they pay taxes, but the district doesn't get extra money because they don't have children going to public school.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 04 September 2013, 04:45 AM
nonnieyrissa's Avatar
nonnieyrissa nonnieyrissa is offline
 
Join Date: 16 July 2007
Location: Brooklyn/Hudson, NY/Rancho Cordova, CA
Posts: 2,554
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
As to your last question, I couldn't answer that. I found out the hard way that families who are not wealthy quickly become pariahs at a school such as you describe, no matter how hard they try to fit in, so I would never subject my children to that. Perhaps some parents want it for their kids so badly that they think they can make it work.
I see how that could be the case, and it would be horrible for the child in such a position. I do not see that at the schools my children attend(separate grounds for males and females). Mostly because their are very black and white rules regarding bullying and most of the students have been there since they started school, so they are aware that there are not second chances if it is proven that you attempted to degrade or bully another student. You're out. I think too, that because there are annual programs throughout the year about things like bullying, being a good friend, respecting boundaries, and others, and in lower school they moved seats every few days for classes and lunch, and switched buddies each time, they are a really close class. Now that they are older they have friends that they are closer too, but they are not click-y like when I went to school. Even during the summer when inviting everyone isn't required(and it is only required if invites are passed out at the school during the year anyways) all parties invite everyone in the class. Including slumber parties(which is insane). They are just really great kids. Each year there is a 2 week trip to Africa(not always the same countries each year) and a end of the year trip(last year Puerto Rico, this is to be Canada) for two weeks, and there is rarely even an issue then, when they have no choice but to be together 24 hours a day for 14 days. I think that when everyone around you, including your friends looks down on rudeness and hurting others it is easier to just be nice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esprise Me View Post
Didn't you say there were scholarships available? Also, is the transportation the thing that is much cheaper? I'm a little confused.
Yes, there are three girls on scholarships in my daughter's class, and yes, I meant that transportation and a nanny in the afternoon are much cheaper than tuition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
In other words, the agreement that's signed in both cases says 100% attendance, but in both the schools referenced it's understood by everybody that it doesn't mean 100% attendance, only that exemptions are supposed to be made on a case-by-case basis for "extreme circumstances" or for "important events"?

Why don't the agreements say that, then?
They do. There is a clause pertaining to extenuating circumstances, yes, but it is not common that allowances are made. It happens, but not because the family went on vacation, or a parent had to go elsewhere and couldn't drop off/pick up the child. It is expected that vacations are scheduled on school vacations, and that you have a back up plan in place for work emergencies or similar. When they make exceptions it is for things like the dying grandmother, or being stuck on the QBE with a broken down vehicle.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 04 September 2013, 05:55 AM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,876
Default

I had no idea private school tuition was so expensive that hiring a nanny to shuttle the kids around would be considered cheap by comparison. I grew up thinking my family was pretty well-off, but even we couldn't afford a nanny; both my parents worked full-time and shelled out big just for after-school care at the YMCA until I was old enough to stay home alone.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 04 September 2013, 06:04 AM
Errata's Avatar
Errata Errata is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 13,165
Default

A part time nanny could be around $20 an hour or so. At 15 hours a week for 40 weeks a year, that's around $12k, which is indeed less than an expensive private school, but not so much cheaper as to be taken for granted. Even the best private schools are generally not a very high multiple of that.

But an after school daycare service, including daily transportation, could be arranged for much less than a dedicated nanny. It's not an uncommon set of needs, and there are services that will meet that need at a reasonable price.

Last edited by Errata; 04 September 2013 at 06:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 04 September 2013, 09:24 AM
nonnieyrissa's Avatar
nonnieyrissa nonnieyrissa is offline
 
Join Date: 16 July 2007
Location: Brooklyn/Hudson, NY/Rancho Cordova, CA
Posts: 2,554
Default

To give an idea of what I mean, some of the better girls schools in our area in terms of tuition...

Spence School:
-Day student tuition: $36,200

Dana Hall School:
-Day student tuition: $37,375
-Boarding student tuition: $49,620

Dalton School:
-Day student tuition: $35,300

Brearley School:
-Day student tuition: $35,550

Ethical Culture Fieldston School:
-Day student tuition: $35,915

The Hewitt School:
-Day student tuition: $38,000

St. Mark's School:
-Day student tuition: $37,450
-Boarding student tuition: $46,900

Now nannies, I wasn't speaking in terms of necessarily a live in nanny, just someone to bring your child to practice if you could not do this. even if you paid the nanny $100 a day, 5 days a week(not all sports practice daily, but to simplify things), so $500 a week for 20 weeks(again not all sports last 20 weeks), so about $10,000, or about 1/4 of the price of tuition, and I do not know anyone that actually pays their nanny $100 for a couple of hours work. That is around $50 an hour. I purposefully skewed the estimate to what would be a ridiculous amount.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 04 September 2013, 09:46 AM
Errata's Avatar
Errata Errata is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 13,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nonnieyrissa View Post
about 1/4 of the price of tuition
AKA, not a high multiple, like I said. Someone who can afford $X can't necessarily afford $1.25X.

But yes, going back to the original point, which was that it would prevent lots of parents with busy schedules from sending their kids to those schools. In reality, the number of people who would fall right in the zone of being able to afford tuition but not tuition plus transportation is probably a fairly small set of people.

People with full work schedules and nobody free to take care of that probably already need to be factoring some sort of child care solution into their budget regardless of their choice in public or private school.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 04 September 2013, 09:59 AM
nonnieyrissa's Avatar
nonnieyrissa nonnieyrissa is offline
 
Join Date: 16 July 2007
Location: Brooklyn/Hudson, NY/Rancho Cordova, CA
Posts: 2,554
Default

Sorry Errata, I was not finding fault in your post, I was responding to Esprise Me.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 04 September 2013, 03:15 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nonnieyrissa View Post
They do. There is a clause pertaining to extenuating circumstances
OK. When you said in post 133

Quote:
that child makes 90% of practices and 100% of games(unless their is a medical reason, though sometimes it is still expected that you are present if it isn't communicable or a very bad injury)
I took that to mean that the agreement only allowed for serious medical reasons; because that's what you said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nonnieyrissa View Post
It is expected that [ . . .] you have a back up plan in place for work emergencies or similar. .
Back up plans sometimes also fail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Errata View Post
People with full work schedules and nobody free to take care of that probably already need to be factoring some sort of child care solution into their budget regardless of their choice in public or private school.
True. However, they may be able to factor in a child care solution that covers minimal essential hours but not always additional activities; or they may be able to factor in a child care solution that covers the child staying in one location, but does not cover schlepping the child around. Or they may be able to factor in a solution which does allow for these things most of the time, but which will have occasional situations for which the back up plan does not cover getting the child to games.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
School officials confirm shooting at Atlanta middle school snopes Police Blotter 14 01 February 2013 12:42 AM
Facebook Private Messages snopes Computers 0 27 September 2012 09:35 PM
'Saving Private Ryan' suicides snopes Military 7 29 November 2011 02:59 PM
You didn't think Facebook was private, did you? Jenn Fauxtography 13 01 September 2009 12:20 PM
Sultan of Brunei's Private Airplane snopes Fauxtography 48 02 April 2008 05:56 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.