Preface: Sometimes outsiders may be able to offer workable suggestions since they aren't emotionally or financially invested.
How about just tweaking the percentages as a compromise?
Based on the amount of the shortfall, the second-child discount could be, say, 80 or 85%. The third-child discount could be 64 or 72%. The rates could adjust according to the previous year's shortfall or surplus.
Just a thought.
> The current SVS tuition structure sets a tuition amount for the first child
> in a family. The second child is charged 75% of that amount, and the third
> and subsequent children are charged 50%. Last year this meant that single
> child families were charged about $500 more than they would have been if
> there were a flat rate for all students. Families with two children were
> charged approximately the flat rate per child, and families with three or
> more children were charged less than the flat rate per child.
> Last spring the Assembly was informed that the proportion of multi-child
> families had increased to the point that we faced a tuition shortfall. We
> were asked to reaffirm the current policy, and to further increase tuition
> in order to cover the shortfall. I voiced my objections to the current
> policy in the context of this discussion. I clearly was not the only one
> who thought we should re-evaluate this policy, since the Assembly voted to
> have the Trustees study it again.
> Now, this year, the Trustees have issued a call for papers to the SVS
> Assembly. Here, in brief, are my thoughts on this subject.
> We charge one rate for everything else at SVS, from pencils to
> dances, to ski trips, to the week of camping at Nickerson, because
> fundamentally we think that it is the fair thing to do. Everybody pays the
> same rate for everything, except tuition. I fully understand that not all
> multi-child families are wealthy, and that some families need the tuition
> discount in order to afford to send all of their children to SVS. But, as
> result of the current tuition policy, SVS gives financial aid to some
> wealthy people at the expense of some families with less money and fewer
> children. This means that there are parents of single children who are
> struggling to subsidize the tuition of people who can afford to pay the
> rate for each of their children. We charge the highest rate to some of
> those who can least afford it, including those students who pay their own
> tuition because they have been cut off from financial support by their
> deadbeat parents. If a family (or student) can't pay the full tuition at
> the beginning of each year, we charge them an additional amount (I believe
> it is 10%) for the privilege of paying over time. We have had kids
> struggling to make tuition payments while working at barely better than
> minimum wage jobs for the benefit of wealthy families who spend more on
> their vacations than those kids are living on in a year. I'm not blaming
> those more wealthy families, because we don't even ask them to pay their
> fair share. They pay what we ask them to pay.
> I think we should charge the same amount for each child unless the family
> decides that they need financial assistance from the rest of the community.
> This is commonly referred to as a sliding scale, and many kinds of
> businesses offer it. If any multiple child family decides they need to
> advantage of the tuition discount at the old rate (25% and 50%), they take
> it. We're not going to question their decision. Not even if they drive a
> BMW, not even if they live in a mansion, not even if they hit the lottery
> for $100,000,000. They decide. And the school budgets assuming that
> every multi-child family takes the discount. Any monies collected above
> budgeted amount would go into a fund to defray the costs for tuition-paying
> students and parents of single children who request financial assistance.
> Much of what I have written here I said at last spring's epic Assembly
> meeting. Since then I have thought more about this topic, discussed it
> friends and family, and refined my position (of which the above is just a
> bare-bones version). I'm sure I will tweak it still more before I submit
> paper to the SVS Journal.
> Since that meeting I have also been roundly criticized, my position has
> distorted, and my motives and right to raise this issue have been
> questioned. I remain unapologetic about opposing a policy which I think
> outlived its usefulness, especially when to go along with it year after
> means that we raise the tuition rates on those least able to afford it more
> frequently than we might otherwise have to. I am an Assembly member and
> this is a matter which, according to SVS's by-laws, falls squarely on the
> Assembly. Expressing my opinion on this subject is therefore perfectly
> appropriate. The fact that I am only a parent should not automatically
> reduce my proposal to something not in keeping with the philosophy of a
> Sudbury model school.
> I'm very interested to hear what this listserve thinks about this issue.
> Dawn Harkness
> If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
> email@example.com (do NOT reply to the mailing list) with the following
> phrase in the BODY (not the subject) of the message, replacing
> "firstname.lastname@example.org" with the email address that you subscribed under:
> unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model email@example.com
> If you are interested in the subject, but the volume of mail sent is too
> you may wish to consider unsubscribing from this list and subscribing to
> This mailing list is archived at http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/archives
If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
firstname.lastname@example.org (do NOT reply to the mailing list) with the following
phrase in the BODY (not the subject) of the message, replacing
"email@example.com" with the email address that you subscribed under:
unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model firstname.lastname@example.org
If you are interested in the subject, but the volume of mail sent is too much,
you may wish to consider unsubscribing from this list and subscribing to
This mailing list is archived at http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/archives
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Mar 27 2002 - 19:39:48 EST