Serious question: Why can't private schools lower their tuition
- Thread starter Cross Bones
- Start date
A
anon_4vszfu35bv677
Guest
Good points Ramblin..
What you are saying that what Loyola is doing is not sustainable. So how do they make up the gap?
They are many ways I know but I'm guessing it's alumni donations...
What you are saying that what Loyola is doing is not sustainable. So how do they make up the gap?
They are many ways I know but I'm guessing it's alumni donations...
LWDad --
I'm not saying that what Loyola is doing is not sustainable. What I am saying is that Bones' goofy idea to reduce tuition by a substantial amount, enroll substantially more students and not hire additional teachers is not only financially unsustainable, but also pedadogically and academically unsound.
All Catholic schools have a gap between total per student cost and tuition revenue. No kid pays full cost tuition. How do schools like Loyola make up the gap? It's usually some combination of fundraising, endowment income, and other revenue producing activities like camps, summer school and facilities rental. In the case of several struggling schools, they receive financial assistance from the Archdiocese's. Big Shoulders Fund.
This post was edited on 12/20 10:23 AM by ramblinman
I'm not saying that what Loyola is doing is not sustainable. What I am saying is that Bones' goofy idea to reduce tuition by a substantial amount, enroll substantially more students and not hire additional teachers is not only financially unsustainable, but also pedadogically and academically unsound.
All Catholic schools have a gap between total per student cost and tuition revenue. No kid pays full cost tuition. How do schools like Loyola make up the gap? It's usually some combination of fundraising, endowment income, and other revenue producing activities like camps, summer school and facilities rental. In the case of several struggling schools, they receive financial assistance from the Archdiocese's. Big Shoulders Fund.
This post was edited on 12/20 10:23 AM by ramblinman
My car analogy still works. There are fixed costs in an educational environment. How could there not be?
So to end this thread, you can't just cut your price in half and sell twice the amount you did at the full price. Ever. For any product or service. It's fiscally irresponsible, and will bankrupt you.
Does that make sense Bones? This is business 101 stuff here, not exactly nuclear physics.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
So to end this thread, you can't just cut your price in half and sell twice the amount you did at the full price. Ever. For any product or service. It's fiscally irresponsible, and will bankrupt you.
Does that make sense Bones? This is business 101 stuff here, not exactly nuclear physics.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
You have not provided the cost to educate a child. Please feel free to go ahead and do that, then explain how you came to that cost. I'll wait. Your car analogy does not work. This is the easy stuff mchs, how can I expect you to get the hard stuff?
This post was edited on 12/20 12:23 PM by Cross Bones
Bones, cost to educate one child is one of the most difficult problems around. it's a frustrating one, too. Presently a big political issue out here in DC, where the public schools are god awful.
This is where the problem lies:
I can tell you exactly what it costs to educate 1 student at any school, if the school had 1 student. I can tell you what it costs 2 students as well, etc etc. However, when the you get to a hundred students or so, things get very complicated. You are now sharing rooms, electric, computer fees, etc etc.
Some prices go up with more kids, some go down.
Just look at physical space to see how complicated things get: suppose you have a building that can sit 100 kids. By adding kids, from 1 -100, the cost per student goes down. Also, it is easier to pay teachers as 5 teachers teaching 20 kids is cheaper than paying 1 teacher to teach 1 kid. However, suddenly you have to pay for more desks, more electricity, more insurance, etc etc.
And that is just the start of it.
---
The issue JCA is facing is part tuition, part improving public schools...and this is where things get real maddening.
When I was at JCA, the public schools in the surrounding area were West and Plainfield. Neither were particularly very good at all...at all...at all. Now however, both have received substantial state funding, and the Joliet, Plainfield, and Minooka schools are substantially improved...substantially...
---
I tie my two points together.
I believe parents should have a meaningful choice as to where they send their kids. JCA does not need a tuition change so much as parents who send their kids to private schools should receive a significant tax credit during the years that their kids go to private schools - like JCA. I do believe citizens should support their community and pay taxes to fund public schools. Even during times when their kids are not going to them like pre-high school and post-high school. However, during high school years, it seems odd to me to force families who want a different kind of education that the only type offered by the state, to have to pay for what the state won't and cannot provide. During those years, give those families a tax break.
Bones it can be frustrating as you.seem to move from point to point without saying much.
So cost at Montini is about $12.5K. Good?
And again this is business 100-101. Not brain surgery. If you need some recommendations for books to read on business or economics, I would be happy to suggest a few. If you live in DuPage, you could probably grab a class at COD to help you out.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
So cost at Montini is about $12.5K. Good?
And again this is business 100-101. Not brain surgery. If you need some recommendations for books to read on business or economics, I would be happy to suggest a few. If you live in DuPage, you could probably grab a class at COD to help you out.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Thanks J-Chill for bring some sort of sanity to this. Fact is there is no one price that it costs to educate a child. There is a cost to build a Mercedes. Furthermore mchs is comparing selling a material product to providing a service. And even then, he is still wrong. Mercedes very well could lower their prices to sell more cars, how much I dont know, but they will not because a Mercedes is a status symbol. Its supposed to have some exclusiveness when compared to a Ford or Chevy. They also cannot sell the exact same car to 20 people at the same time, they would have to sell 20 cars. This is the simple stuff I expect mchs to grasp. Its business 101. I mean, if we even just read the thread, Loyola has found a way to charge some people $14K, St Ignatius is $16K, Benet is $10K, Naz is $12K, Montini is about $10.5, JCA is $10.4 (but if you send 4 kids, the 4th is free)
So, JCA for example charges less, the more kids sent. But somehow according to some here private schools cannot charge less. Someone please make sense of it for me. How, at the same time, can the school not charge less, but charge less?
This post was edited on 12/20 4:08 PM by Cross Bones
So to be clear, what I have gained from this thread is that...
Naz and Montini are at capacity at their tuition rate. From that I gather they can probably actually raise tuition (if at capacity I would have no issue with this, Adam Smith would agree)
Some schools (or all schools) are not charging their full posted tuition for all students. (which I suppose I can agree with, and it also answers the question of the thread; Private schools can and are lowering their tuition in some instances)
All Private schools are operating at a loss. (this is the most baffling to me; is there a business model that would net a profit or break even at least?)
Not sure why the anger on the part of some posters that the question was asked. It would seem based the answers here that a discussion could be had to right this thing.
Bones,
I think the reason people grow more and more annoyed is because you have an agenda which you have not yet revealed. Now don't try to say it was an innocent question because we all know it's not, so how about you come clean with what ride you are trying to take us on!
I think the reason people grow more and more annoyed is because you have an agenda which you have not yet revealed. Now don't try to say it was an innocent question because we all know it's not, so how about you come clean with what ride you are trying to take us on!
Bones, for profit schools have been discussed for some time out here in DC, too. IMO, it's far from the worst idea.
In for profit schools, sponsors and, future employers (who invest in the school), and donors who would receive tax breaks for funding school have a direct and immediate vested interest in ensuring quality students, teachers, facilities, and results.
Imagine having a lot of money....donating money to the school...getting the school named after you...your companies...the school doing well...you are considered incredibly charitable...the school does well...and then you get a hug tax break...
nah...who would want part of that....
No, only guilty people feel that way. Ignazio answered and JCHILL answered without the guilt factor.
Sounds like a good idea to me. Actually, these schools exist elsewhere, no? Like IMG and Prime Prep?
Bones,
First off no guilt here but I do believe you are on some type of hunt.
Regarding IMG vs Prime Prep, they couldn't be farther from similar. Prime Prep is a charter school in the Dallas area founded in 2012ish and has open enrollment and tuition is gratis, last I heard their finances are in a tough spot. IMG is primarily a boarding school that gathers talent from around the country and world(dependent on sport) and recruits like Dividion 1 colleges but doesn't oft offer scholarship, in fact their tuition ranges from the high $50ks to the low $80ks dependent on your child's sport.
Now if you want to talk about schools that have had success with corporate sponsorship I posted an article from the Wall Street Journal a few months back about Don Bosco prep in NJ and their rise from the ashes of near closing in 1999 to national dominance today.
As you suggested to Ramblin earlier get you facts together before you post next time.
First off no guilt here but I do believe you are on some type of hunt.
Regarding IMG vs Prime Prep, they couldn't be farther from similar. Prime Prep is a charter school in the Dallas area founded in 2012ish and has open enrollment and tuition is gratis, last I heard their finances are in a tough spot. IMG is primarily a boarding school that gathers talent from around the country and world(dependent on sport) and recruits like Dividion 1 colleges but doesn't oft offer scholarship, in fact their tuition ranges from the high $50ks to the low $80ks dependent on your child's sport.
Now if you want to talk about schools that have had success with corporate sponsorship I posted an article from the Wall Street Journal a few months back about Don Bosco prep in NJ and their rise from the ashes of near closing in 1999 to national dominance today.
As you suggested to Ramblin earlier get you facts together before you post next time.
Bones,
Don't quote me on this, but I remember OPRF having a problem with Chicago kids attending their school. I'm remember that when the kids were caught, OPRF said that it cost about $18,000-19,000 to educate one student in their district. I am not 100% sure about that number but I do remember that if a kid wanted to go to school there and didn't live within the boundries of the school district that they would have to pay.
With every body talking about what parents are paying to send their kids tp private schools we should remember that they are still paying taxes for the public school districts that they live in, as well as people who don't have any kids at all or parents that don't have HS age kids.
The difference is that everybody pays taxes for the public school district in their area but only the parents sending their kids to private schools pay that tuition -- just a little different. That is where the difference in $$$ comes.
Don't quote me on this, but I remember OPRF having a problem with Chicago kids attending their school. I'm remember that when the kids were caught, OPRF said that it cost about $18,000-19,000 to educate one student in their district. I am not 100% sure about that number but I do remember that if a kid wanted to go to school there and didn't live within the boundries of the school district that they would have to pay.
With every body talking about what parents are paying to send their kids tp private schools we should remember that they are still paying taxes for the public school districts that they live in, as well as people who don't have any kids at all or parents that don't have HS age kids.
The difference is that everybody pays taxes for the public school district in their area but only the parents sending their kids to private schools pay that tuition -- just a little different. That is where the difference in $$$ comes.
Just the Facts:
According to the Illinois Dept. of Education:
Operating Expense per High School Student:
Highest: $27,030.75
Median: $13,957.01
Lowest: $9,292.11
Per Capita Tuition (amount charged non-resident student)
Highest: $24,338.39
Median: $12,957.01
Lowest: $7,478.17
Tuition among 27 Chicago area Catholic High Schools: (Data collected from various sources)
Highest: $16,300.00 (St. Ignatius)
Median: $10,604.52
Lowest: $6,150.00 (Marian Central Catholic)
Illinois State Board of Education
According to the Illinois Dept. of Education:
Operating Expense per High School Student:
Highest: $27,030.75
Median: $13,957.01
Lowest: $9,292.11
Per Capita Tuition (amount charged non-resident student)
Highest: $24,338.39
Median: $12,957.01
Lowest: $7,478.17
Tuition among 27 Chicago area Catholic High Schools: (Data collected from various sources)
Highest: $16,300.00 (St. Ignatius)
Median: $10,604.52
Lowest: $6,150.00 (Marian Central Catholic)
Illinois State Board of Education
Here is an article showing that the published cost per student for public schools is under-reported.
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa662.pdf
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa662.pdf
First of all, you said you have "gained" that some schools are not charging their full posted tuition for all students. Seriously? You needed this thread to "gain" that information? Newsflash: It's called financial aid. At Loyola, roughly one-quarter of the students receive financial aid in the form of reduced tuition from the published rate.
Secondly, where in this thread did you "gain" that all private schools are operating at a loss? Certainly not from anything that I said. I talked about how there is a gap between tuition revenue and the total revenue needed to operate most private schools in order to break even. I also talked about the sources of revenue that are typically used to cover that gap. Nowhere did I say that all private schools operate at a loss. In terms of the operating budgets, most private schools operate a few percentage points either side of break even. If there is an operating loss for the year, funds are taken from reserves (or borrowed from endowment and ultimately paid back) to pay for the loss. If there is a surplus, it is added to reserves. That's no different from what ALL non-profit organizations do.
Secondly, where in this thread did you "gain" that all private schools are operating at a loss? Certainly not from anything that I said. I talked about how there is a gap between tuition revenue and the total revenue needed to operate most private schools in order to break even. I also talked about the sources of revenue that are typically used to cover that gap. Nowhere did I say that all private schools operate at a loss. In terms of the operating budgets, most private schools operate a few percentage points either side of break even. If there is an operating loss for the year, funds are taken from reserves (or borrowed from endowment and ultimately paid back) to pay for the loss. If there is a surplus, it is added to reserves. That's no different from what ALL non-profit organizations do.
Here is the cost to attend Althoff Catholic:
2014-2015 TUITIONMembers of Belleville Diocese Catholic Parish:
1st student - $6,725
2nd student - $6,725
3rd student - No ChargeMembers of Catholic Parish out of Belleville Diocese: $7,125
It's the diocese that often covers the shortfall between actual cost and tuition.
That said, even the higher cost of kids from outside of the diocese, it costs half than what the state pays on average per pupil: $15,621.00.
2014-2015 TUITIONMembers of Belleville Diocese Catholic Parish:
1st student - $6,725
2nd student - $6,725
3rd student - No ChargeMembers of Catholic Parish out of Belleville Diocese: $7,125
It's the diocese that often covers the shortfall between actual cost and tuition.
That said, even the higher cost of kids from outside of the diocese, it costs half than what the state pays on average per pupil: $15,621.00.
No Jwar he won't. He just likes to argue and always thinks he's right. Christ, the guy fights with everyone....
And bones - what do you think SHG's record would be if they lowered tuition and increased the student body numbers?
Your original question is as stupid as the basis of my spoof question.
Your original question is as stupid as the basis of my spoof question.
Althoff is an example of a diocesan owned school, which is why it charges different rates for registered members of diocesan parishes and for those who aren't members. The Diocese of Belleville has made the decision to SUBSIDIZE the Catholic high school education of its members.
That is different from most of the Catholic schools in the Chicago Archdiocese which are owned either by religious orders of priests, nuns or brothers, or they are staffed/sponsored by those orders and owned by a board of trustees. For example, Loyola is a Jesuit sponsored school that is owned by a board of trustees. There are only a few Archdiocesan owned schools in Chicago. Off the top of my head, I can think of St. Benedict, St. Francis de Sales and Our Lady of Tepeyac. There used to be tons more.
This post was edited on 12/22 1:46 PM by ramblinman
The problem is, if it were that easy, funding schools would not be a problem.
I have read so many debates on the issue, i have switched sides so many times...
Most objetive people can't for the life of them determine what amounts to a per student cost. The best way to explain the point of why it is so difficult, at least as far as arguments that I have heard goes like this.
If you have a school budget of say 10k (just to keep it easy) to cover all students (call it 1000), and you add or subtract 10 students, you can still operate with the exact same budget. You might even be able to adjust 20 or 30 each way. however, when you get to 50 students one way or another, the indcrease or decrease of funds differs wildly.
usually, when you think of how much something is "per" something, all you have to do is divide x and y. but in schools and other industry, it just does not work. One spanish teacher can teach three kids, ten kids, 20 kids, maybe 30. But at some point, you need another teacher...and boom, there's a tens of thousands of dollars one kid difference...but where is it? and that is just one example. it's maddening to try and determine.
I will never be convinced there is a "cost per student" that is knowable. That said, I think you can reduce the financial burden of folks choosing to sent their kids to private schools by simply providing a meaningfull tax break.
Agreed. But trying to find the answer does not lie in classrooms with excess capacity as Bones would suggest. It lies in things like teacher/student ratios, teacher class loads, and numbers of students taught per teacher.
Sure, classes of 15 students is better than 30 students in a class. How much better? There is research out there that proves lower class size is better. Can a school "get by" or "make do" with 20 students in a class? Sure. But lower is better.
Again, it's better to think in terms of the school establishing what its standards are with respect to teacher class loads (no more than 5 or 6 classes and 3 or 4 preps, for example) and numbers of students taught per teacher (no more than 130 for example). That way, when enrollment fluctuates up, it can say, hey, we need to hire x more teachers to stay within our standards. When enrollment goes down, it can look to not renew the contracts of x teachers so as to be close to the top end of its minimum standards.
Where it starts really getting tricky is when the private school makes a commitment to, say, offering four years of Mandarin with two different academic tracks (as Loyola does) or four years of honors Greek (as Loyola does). You might wind up having maybe 8-10 kids in a Loyola class like AP Mandarin, but that's a good example of the difference between a private college prep school and a typical public high school. For example, Bolingbrook, a school of 3,582 students, offers Spanish, German and French foreign language options, and does not require its students to study foreign language. Loyola, a school of 2,052 students, requires a minimum of two years of foreign language (most kids take three or four) and offers Spanish, French, Latin, Greek and Mandarin.
When considering cost per student you have to add in transportation and special needs. Some special needs students require a one on one aide which dramatically increases cost. Transportation cost are not included in private school tuition. That is deemed an extra with separate pay.
This post was edited on 12/22 4:01 PM by mc140
This post was edited on 12/22 4:01 PM by mc140
140, rambler...two more great examples of reasons why no formula works.
I always fall back on the fact that: private schools offer classes that public schools cannot by law, and private schools can offer more focused studies, public schools cannot (don't read much into that, there are lots of things public schools can offer that many privates cannot also - lots). So, if you genuinely believe in choice, and your ability to see what your child needs, there really needs to be a way to assit private schools - or at least the state should see why having the choice of a private school is important - just as i see the choice of having a public school is important.
Using my current living situation as an example: i live in DC. any small amount of research shows two things. the public schools are as bad they get and the private schools start at around 20k...if you want to send your kid to a low brow private school that is (for example, Sidwell friends goes for 36k a year, but hey, that includes a "hot lunch."
So, my choice as an expecting father. send my kid to a public school here where teachers are abscent as often as kids; go bankrupt giving my kid an education; home schooling (losing my wife's salary); or uprooting my family and quitting my job.
I know another option, but i'm not turning this thread into a political one...
Hahaha. You are the idiot. It has been proven time after time on this board and has been proven again in this thread. Go back to your ideological fantasy world...your extra chromosome is showing again.
This post was edited on 12/23 10:38 AM by Dr. Mirakle
Most kids
Public: Lake View HS, Lincoln Park HS, Payton, Northside Prep, Lane Tech -- the last three schools being selective admissions.
Of the substantial minority of kids in those neighborhoods who attend private schools, most would attend Parker, Latin, and Ignatius. Loyola, DePaul Prep and St. Ben's enroll kids from those neighborhoods also. You might get a few opting for single gender private schools like St. Pat's, Notre Dame in Niles, or Regina in Wilmette.
I'll tell you exactly what he did. Instead of being a man and admitting he is wrong, he slinked away...exactly how people like him act.
WY for sure. Amundsen is more Edgewater than Lakeview. A few to ICJA, but LN is so small and kinda far from LP and LV to merit much of a mention.
Dr. Calling Bones out because he does not agree
with you is just not right. Listen I have know Bones
for over 10 years.
Bones has always been a stand up guy. If he is choosing not
to reply Its his choice. Bones I figured when I saw this
post it was going to get ugly and it did.
Sorry you found out the hard way.
with you is just not right. Listen I have know Bones
for over 10 years.
Bones has always been a stand up guy. If he is choosing not
to reply Its his choice. Bones I figured when I saw this
post it was going to get ugly and it did.
Sorry you found out the hard way.
Latest posts
-
-
Which game this weekend has you excited?
- Latest: Sterling Warrior
