Jump to content

Menu

$40,000 for school


roanna
 Share

Recommended Posts

I didn't know if anyone else would be interested in this but I found it humorous but also encouraging...

 

I saw on the news that Tom Cruises daughter went to first grade today at a school in NY and it costs $40,000 a year. I clicked on the link for the curriculum to see what special things they could possibly have and the only name brand of curriculum I saw was ..... Singapore Standards. I thought wow, I just bought this for $50 for a semester. I'm glad I can give my kids a quality education for a lot less.

 

I admit I don't have enough money to send my kids to pottery art classes like it mentions or a 1/2 day immersion in Spanish or Chinese but if I really wanted to I am sure it wouldn't even come close to $40,000.

 

I just feel great that I can say , hey, my kid uses the same math her!

Nothing too special about that school!

 

:)

If you want to see it ... http://www.avenues.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/LowerSchool_CurriculumChart.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well not wanting to burst your bubble or nothin', but home education probably costs us more than $40K if you add the cost of me not having paid work to the costs of all the stuff we use (not just education related stuff, but also peripheral stuff such as the fact that we wouldn't be heating the house all day if everyone were at work or school).

 

And the $40K for that school? Probably $10K for the schooling and the rest for the cachet of being able to say that you kid goes to school with Suri Cruise.

Edited by Hotdrink
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well not wanting to burst your bubble or nothin', but home education probably costs us more than $40K if you add the cost of me not having paid work to the costs of all the stuff we use (not just education related stuff, but also peripheral stuff such as the fact that we wouldn't be heating the house all day if everyone were at work or school).

 

In my case, even if my kids were in private school, I'd still be a stay at home mom, so it really is private school tuition vs. homeschool curriculum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for how much we pay to homeschool:

 

I'm a WAHM, but I did the math to see if I could quit, and we'd have to cut back on spending money on things that we "want", but as for necessities, we'd be fine, and I make well over 40K a year, so I don't see it as though we're spending that.

 

As another poster said, it's really the cost of private school versus the cost of curriculum for me. Buying my own curriculum and homeschooling is far cheaper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well not wanting to burst your bubble or nothin', but home education probably costs us more than $40K if you add the cost of me not having paid work to the costs of all the stuff we use (not just education related stuff, but also peripheral stuff such as the fact that we wouldn't be heating the house all day if everyone were at work or school).

 

And the $40K for that school? Probably $10K for the schooling and the rest for the cachet of being able to say that you kid goes to school with Suri Cruise.

I sure don't spend anywhere near $40k a year on school. My husband only makes a couple thousand more then that per year and we are a family of six. LOL!

Edited by teeniebeenie6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

home education probably costs us more than $40K if you add the cost of me not having paid work to the costs of all the stuff we use

 

I don't really understand why people say this. Homeschooling and not working full time are a choice. You are not paying for this choice. It's not costing you money that you are forking out. That would like me saying that it's costing my husband a billion dollars a year to work at his current job because he's chosen not to be Bill Gates.

 

My feeling is, if you choose not to work, you don't get to claim that it's costing you that amount of money to homeschool.

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I doubt they just buy the $50 book and hand it to the child. There is probably a cost for a teacher, too.

 

I would imagine the cost of just having the school *building* is outrageous in NYC. And then you add the price of highly qualified teachers who make more than a Midwest teacher needs, I'm sure.

 

There is a school north of here that costs $30,000, or $40,000 if you board. I would have expected a fancy NYC school to be more.

Edited by angela in ohio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you price out schools in NYC, you will see that is not a crazy high price for there. Everything is pricey there!!! Preschool runs thousands of dollars a year. I'm not shocked in the least, tbh.

:iagree:Tuition for private schools near my home in middle TN.

 

Traditional Classroom not religious

middle school is $17,380 and elementary is $14,760

 

Montessori

elementary $9975

 

Non-denominational Christian

$9,900

 

Catholic

elementary

$5960 (participating member of a Catholic Parish)

$7250 (non-participating Catholic)

$8,200 (non-Catholic)

 

This school that Suri attends may help Katie and Suri ground their lives. Between what Katie makes and receives in child support, she should be able to afford the tuition. ;)

 

With my little guy being an only at home, I have not ruled out te possibility that he will be attending a traditional classroom school at some point. It would be nice to be in a position financially where I could just choose the school that was the best fit instead of having to do a price comparison.

 

Mandy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hotdrink's description of opportunity cost is spot on and a term used in Economics 101. Yes, staying home and/or homeschooling is a choice but with every choice there is a cost.

 

In my case, the opportunity cost is several times the cost Suri's school. Is it worth it? Right now, yes. Ask me again when the kids are having a meltdown over having to write a paragraph :001_unsure:

 

I will not begrudge another parent's choice.

Edited by Taz007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope no one feels that I was bad mouthing them for having the money to send her there. I think it's great she gets to go to a good fun school. My point by posting it was just saying that it encouraged me that what I am giving my kids is similar in curriculum and hopefully fun too.

 

Everybody makes what they make. My husband was making more than twice the amount of money before he made a career change. Money is not the end of life even though I wish I had more of it right now!

 

Even if we were making tons of money like movie stars I would still want to homeschool my kids, I would just be way more over the top with stuff I could do with them. I love teaching my kids and don't want to give it to anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes me sad that people waste their money in this way when it could be diverted to helping those in need. Who really needs a $480,000 K-12 education?

 

Answer: No one.

 

Tara

 

Yeah but I also think it's ridiculous that movie stars are zillionairs, and how did they get there? People support it.

 

I don't really care how much money movie stars spend. Maybe some of them earn it, but really HOllywood is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but I also think it's ridiculous that movie stars are zillionairs, and how did they get there? People support it.

 

I don't really care how much money movie stars spend. Maybe some of them earn it, but really HOllywood is ridiculous.

 

Yes, it is.

 

As well as what athletes make....I call that kind of disparity obscene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hotdrink's description of opportunity cost is spot on and a term used in Economics 101. Yes, staying home and/or homeschooling is a choice but with every choice there is a cost.

 

 

Yes, I know about opportunity cost. I took several econ classes, too. ;)

 

I can completely understand someone saying, "If I were working I could be making $40,000 a year, but I'm homeschooling so I am forgoing that income," but, imo, when you spin it into, "I'm forgoing the income of working so homeschooling is costing me $40,000," I think you are muddying the issue. It may cost you $40,000 to chose not to work, but that doesn't mean homeschooling costs $40,000. Income forgone is not the same as money spent.

 

Tara

Edited by TaraTheLiberator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I know about opportunity cost. I took several econ classes, too. ;)

 

I can completely understand someone saying, "If I were working I could be making $40,000 a year, but I'm homeschooling so I am forgoing that income," but, imo, when you spin it into, "I'm forgoing the income of working so homeschooling is costing me $40,000," I think you are muddying the issue. It may cost you $40,000 to chose not to work, but that doesn't mean homeschooling costs $40,000. Income forgone is not the same as money spent.

 

Tara

 

That and homeschooling vs. working outside the home are not necessarily the decision made. My son was in private school for a year and a half, and I still stayed at home without working. I quit my job the day my water broke with him. :tongue_smilie:

 

Likewise, several parents on this board work outside the home and homeschool.

 

So working outside the home vs. staying at home doesn't necessarily have anything to do with homeschooling vs. private schooling. For some families, I can see work influencing the choice, but for many here it probably doesn't.

 

In my house, the choice truly was just private schooling vs. homeschooling (public schooling was not an option on the table). My work status doesn't at all affect that choice, so I can't claim cost lost by not working. It truly is costing us less to homeschool than to do private school, because I'd be staying at home with my younger kids regardless. That's a choice we made before we even got married, and we weren't at all thinking about homeschooling back then (the plan was always for me to stay at home and the kids to go to private school for K-12, and we didn't do preschool).

Edited by boscopup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, they make a rediculous amount of $, and there's a lot of good that can be done eith it instead. But who are we to judge that? For all we know she is doing good with her $. And have we never wasted any? We eat out too much, which is a large waste and could feed lots of starving people around the world. Compared to many, all of us live in extravagance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree:

Yes, I know about opportunity cost. I took several econ classes, too. ;)

 

I can completely understand someone saying, "If I were working I could be making $40,000 a year, but I'm homeschooling so I am forgoing that income," but, imo, when you spin it into, "I'm forgoing the income of working so homeschooling is costing me $40,000," I think you are muddying the issue. It may cost you $40,000 to chose not to work, but that doesn't mean homeschooling costs $40,000. Income forgone is not the same as money spent.

 

Tara

 

Now, I do agree with the your statement that money forgone is not the same as money spent but there were a few other posts that stated othewise.

 

And as far as who should spend $480,000 on their child's education? That is the decision of the parent and I will not disparage that choice.

Edited by Taz007
Edited to agree with Scuff; posting at the same time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, they make a ridiculous amount of $, and there's a lot of good that can be done with it instead. But who are we to judge that? For all we know she is doing good with her $. And have we never wasted any? We eat out too much, which is a large waste and could feed lots of starving people around the world. Compared to many, all of us live in extravagance.

 

:iagree:

 

$40,000 sounds cheap for NYC private school, IMO. And in relation to Katie and Tom's incomes, it's pocket change.

 

It'd be like people being disgusted at me for "wasting my money" when I spent $20 for a field trip for my kids, instead of "helping the poor people". :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree:

 

$40,000 sounds cheap for NYC private school, IMO. And in relation to Katie and Tom's incomes, it's pocket change.

 

It'd be like people being disgusted at me for "wasting my money" when I spent $20 for a field trip for my kids, instead of "helping the poor people". :confused:

 

Well, I'm not disgusted at you. :D For that matter I'm not disgusted at Katy or Tom. Heck, I'd take their money if the opportunity presented itself. Also, we all have to be accountable for the 'good' we do with the resources we have.

 

My disgust is for the disparity. For the entire system that is so out of whack. Even as a kid I wanted to know 'if all the money in all the world was divided between all the people would everyone have enough.' And yes, I realize that is a simplistic question with no simplistic answer and there are all sorts of factors involved (work ethic, ability, addiction, war, disease, politics) but the basic issue I have is that some have so little and others have so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, they make a rediculous amount of $, and there's a lot of good that can be done eith it instead. But who are we to judge that? For all we know she is doing good with her $. And have we never wasted any? We eat out too much, which is a large waste and could feed lots of starving people around the world. Compared to many, all of us live in extravagance.

Totally agree with you. When we buy anything unneeded, Starbucks coffee, internet, cell phones, even a chocolate bar, none of that is a necessity. We could use that money to help others. It comes off as jealous to judge other people who do have money. We also do not know how much they give away of their money. I don't see the use of judging them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree with you. When we buy anything unneeded, Starbucks coffee, internet, cell phones, even a chocolate bar, none of that is a necessity. We could use that money to help others. It comes off as jealous to judge other people who do have money. We also do not know how much they give away of their money. I don't see the use of judging them.

 

It isn't judging a person to see the insanity of some having so much while others just get by or worse. That isn't to say Katie should give away all her money. That wouldn't solve the global issue anymore than it would be solved for us to stop buying Starbucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree:

 

$40,000 sounds cheap for NYC private school, IMO. And in relation to Katie and Tom's incomes, it's pocket change.

 

It'd be like people being disgusted at me for "wasting my money" when I spent $20 for a field trip for my kids, instead of "helping the poor people". :confused:

 

 

I agree!!! If you feel upset that Katie and Tom spend their $$ on what they think is best, or even on conveniences and trifles, then you are so totally not living in your own reality.

 

By that logic, you better sell your car, give up your house, live in a hut somewhere and give all your $$ "to the poor."

 

Katie and Tom have a right to spend theor budgeted $$ on what they believe is best for their daughter just like you have a right to spend your budgeted $$ on xyz curriculum, or on sports or piano lessons, or classes or even your air conditioned, heated middle class house! (obviously I'm making a guess there but I'm doing it to prove the point, not pick on any particular poster.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if was brought up there, but it is important to remember how astoundingly famous Tom Cruise is, and what a media item Suri was (and continues to be.)

 

If you/your kid had that kind of fame, you don't just throw them in a public school or in some school with a shoestring budget. You'd want them in a school with top-notch security and probably other high-profile students and well-screened teachers who would know not to treat your kid like a celebrity freak.

 

At least I know I would (if I had decided against homeschooling/private tutoring, that is.) I do not consider $40,000 a lavish tuition for someone with that level of fame. And I don't envy people in that situation, not one bit. Having to constantly shelter your child from your fame (fame that the child did not ask for) has got to be one of the most painful and difficult parts of being famous.

Edited by zenjenn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't quite see it that way though. Lets say I could make $40K a year. By the time you subtract taxes, child care, clothing, transportation, etc... It's not anywhere near 40K. Looking at what the local Y charges for it's before and after school care program, I'd be forking out almost $500 a week for 2 kids. This is the program they do right at the school. So that would probably be what I'd have to go with. That's $18,000 right there for 36 weeks. I don't even spend that on my mortgage in a year.

 

We found that to be true, also. To benefit at all from my work (we had preschool aged kids who would have required full day care at the time), I worked days, and dh worked nights. It was exhausting. We were sick exponentially more often, we ate worse, and the kids were getting spoiled b/c I'd feel guilty about the lack of time together and buy them awesome books and toys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't judging a person to see the insanity of some having so much while others just get by or worse.

 

Thank you. I certainly am not jealous. I want neither their lifestyle, with its attendant problems, nor their money, with its attendant problems. Nor am I on board with the idea that we should never judge people. I think that's PC hogwash. Of course we should judge people; we have to have standards as to how we should behave and treat one another and the examples we should set with our lives.

 

That said, I'm really not invested in what these people do with their money. Were it not a topic up for discussion on this board, I'd never have said a word about it.

 

But since I did, I will say that I'm in no way ashamed to feel that $480,000 or $40,000 in one year spent on one child's education is wasteful. Personally, I think the school should be ashamed for charging that much, and I think it's ridiculous for a parent to buy into the idea that their child needs a $40,000 environment. I certainly do think it's sad that $480,000 may go to one child's education when homeschoolers are living proof that a stellar education needn't cost anywhere near that much. There comes a point of diminishing returns. I think it's sad that that money is not available to people who could actually benefit from enormous positive changes in their lives in ways far beyond what the already extremely rich child of actors will.

 

We can nitpick about how the tiny expenses someone with my limited means could be used to better purpose. Sure they could. I actually use a proportionately large percentage of our income supporting orphaned children and indigent people around the world. In my own life, the law of diminishing returns also comes into play. I could, yes, give up the $3 comic books I purchase monthly for my kids. That extra $6 a month wouldn't go very far toward solving any social problems. Were that $6 instead $3,333 a month ($40,000/12), it would make a much larger impact.

 

I'm sure that the parents we are discussing spend lots of money on things that I would consider extravagant and wasteful. Perhaps they also spend lots of money on charity. Maybe they would think my children are hopelessly underprivileged and doomed because of it. I certainly don't know, and I really don't care, because I'm not going to chase them down and give them a piece of my mind. They are certainly free to spend their money as they see fit, and I am free to think that are making unfortunate choices and being poor stewards.

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Obama's girls attend a school that charges (per student; although there may be a discount for more than one child) upwards of 34K a year. Is this any different?

I'm sure that security comes into play - for both the Obamas and any other "celeb" family.

Thank you. I certainly am not jealous. I want neither their lifestyle, with its attendant problems, nor their money, with its attendant problems. Nor am I on board with the idea that we should never judge people. I think that's PC hogwash. Of course we should judge people; we have to have standards as to how we should behave and treat one another and the examples we should set with our lives.

 

That said, I'm really not invested in what these people do with their money. Were it not a topic up for discussion on this board, I'd never have said a word about it.

 

But since I did, I will say that I'm in no way ashamed to feel that $480,000 or $40,000 in one year spent on one child's education is wasteful. Personally, I think the school should be ashamed for charging that much, and I think it's ridiculous for a parent to buy into the idea that their child needs a $40,000 environment. I certainly do think it's sad that $480,000 may go to one child's education when homeschoolers are living proof that a stellar education needn't cost anywhere near that much. There comes a point of diminishing returns. I think it's sad that that money is not available to people who could actually benefit from enormous positive changes in their lives in ways far beyond what the already extremely rich child of actors will.

 

We can nitpick about how the tiny expenses someone with my limited means could be used to better purpose. Sure they could. I actually use a proportionately large percentage of our income supporting orphaned children and indigent people around the world. In my own life, the law of diminishing returns also comes into play. I could, yes, give up the $3 comic books I purchase monthly for my kids. That extra $6 a month wouldn't go very far toward solving any social problems. Were that $6 instead $3,333 a month ($40,000/12), it would make a much larger impact.

 

I'm sure that the parents we are discussing spend lots of money on things that I would consider extravagant and wasteful. Perhaps they also spend lots of money on charity. Maybe they would think my children are hopelessly underprivileged and doomed because of it. I certainly don't know, and I really don't care, because I'm not going to chase them down and give them a piece of my mind. They are certainly free to spend their money as they see fit, and I am free to think that are making unfortunate choices and being poor stewards.

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Obama's girls attend a school that charges (per student; although there may be a discount for more than one child) upwards of 34K a year. Is this any different?

 

It's my understanding that the public provides Secret Service for the family of the President. I would be more inclined to feel that very expensive private school tuition (if the tuition is, indeed, for beefed-up security) is a more worthwhile expense for someone who is serving our country in the capacity of President.

 

ETA: Before someone twists my words, I am not implying that the president's children are more valuable than an actor's children. I simply don't agree with the fetishization of media stars that results in the necessity of such expenditures.

 

Tara

Edited by TaraTheLiberator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my understanding that the public provides Secret Service for the family of the President. I would be more inclined to feel that very expensive private school tuition (if the tuition is, indeed, for beefed-up security) is a more worthwhile expense for someone who is serving our country in the capacity of President.

 

Tara

High profile kidnappings aren't solely a concern for the president - there's an impressive list of kidnappings that have involved the children of wealthy bankers, politicians in lesser positions than the president, celebrities, etc.

 

I suppose I *could* say that I find it odd for a president with Obama's ideologies to spend that much on his children's education since, as you stated, they do receive security courtesy the secret service, but I won't - because I don't find it an obscene amount given their high profile needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

High profile kidnappings aren't solely a concern for the president - there's an impressive list of kidnappings that have involved the children of wealthy bankers, politicians in lesser positions than the president, celebrities, etc.

 

If public schools aren't safe enough to prevent children from being kidnapped, that's a huge problem in and of itself, and the solution isn't to send wealthy kids to safe® places on the off chance that they may be snatched from the school.

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you quantify how much is "enough" (for schooling, extracurriculars, etc)? What is that exact dollar amount?

 

And how "poor" must one be to receive a hand out and how much should they receive? What price would you (collective "you") for your child's privacy and safety?

Edited by Taz007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last, what price would you (collective "you") for your child's privacy and safety?

 

Personally, if I were a movie star, I wouldn't have kids, because I wouldn't want to subject them to the lifestyle pressures that go along with it. I'm not saying everyone has to make that decision, of course.

 

But I'm in no danger of being a movie star, because I'm not attractive enough and I have no desire to open my life so wide to those with gawking interests.

 

ETA: I'm really annoyed by the fact that I can't come up with the right word to use in place of "gawking." That's not the word I'm looking for. I'm seeking a word along the lines of "prurient" but without the sexual connotation. Any suggestions?

 

Tara

Edited by TaraTheLiberator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, if I were a movie star, I wouldn't have kids, because I wouldn't want to subject them to the lifestyle pressures that go along with it. I'm not saying everyone has to make that decision, of course.

 

But I'm in no danger of being a movie star, because I'm not attractive enough and I have no desire to open my life so wide to those with gawking interests.

 

ETA: I'm really annoyed by the fact that I can't come up with the right word to use in place of "gawking." That's not the word I'm looking for. I'm seeking a word along the lines of "prurient" but without the sexual connotation. Any suggestions?

 

Tara

 

You did not answer the question of "how much is enough"? You do not have to have children in order to be lacking in stewardship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if was brought up there, but it is important to remember how astoundingly famous Tom Cruise is, and what a media item Suri was (and continues to be.)

 

If you/your kid had that kind of fame, you don't just throw them in a public school or in some school with a shoestring budget. You'd want them in a school with top-notch security and probably other high-profile students and well-screened teachers who would know not to treat your kid like a celebrity freak.

 

At least I know I would (if I had decided against homeschooling/private tutoring, that is.) I do not consider $40,000 a lavish tuition for someone with that level of fame. And I don't envy people in that situation, not one bit. Having to constantly shelter your child from your fame (fame that the child did not ask for) has got to be one of the most painful and difficult parts of being famous.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, you buy the curriculum for $50 - but you are also staying home and not earning an income. For many mothers who choose to stay home and homeschool instead of working, the cost is easily 40k per year, for some several times this. The higher the mother's education, the larger the cost. And if you factor in the loss of life time earnings caused by staying home for several years, thus losing all chances of advancement, homeschooling can be very expensive.

Edited by regentrude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did not answer the question of "how much is enough"? You do not have to have children in order to be lacking in stewardship.

 

When it reaches the point that someone or someones have more than just need and comfort and have crossed the line to extravagance and luxury while other people don't even have their needs met, it's too much.

 

That's a way larger discussion than there is scope for here, but I will say that I believe that the way capitalism is structured, it is guaranteed that there will be haves and have-nots, and the have-nots aren't in that position simply because they are lazy or feel entitled.

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it reaches the point that someone or someones have more than just need and comfort and have crossed the line to extravagance and luxury while other people don't even have their needs met, it's too much.

 

Most Americans, even the poor ones, fit that criteria if you're comparing with some 3rd world countries... Having a TV in your home seems extravagant compared to having no electricity and not being sure you will even get one meal in a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most Americans, even the poor ones, fit that criteria if you're comparing with some 3rd world countries... Having a TV in your home seems extravagant compared to having no electricity and not being sure you will even get one meal in a day.

 

Yes, I know, and I feel guilty about it every day. That's why I try to find ways to help. I'm sure most of you don't know, but in the past four months I have raised or contributed over $4000 for orphaned/institutionalized children in Eastern Europe. I also support an elderly Tibetan refugee in India and an orphanage for children with HIV in Ethiopia. I don't say this to toot my own horn but to make sure you know that I do what I can to walk the talk.

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If public schools aren't safe enough to prevent children from being kidnapped, that's a huge problem in and of itself, and the solution isn't to send wealthy kids to safe® places on the off chance that they may be snatched from the school.

 

Tara

It is not the obligation of any single person to place their own child in harm's way to prove a point - and placing a couple wealthy children in an unsafe school isn't going to solve the problem either. School safety IS a huge problem.

It may be because I need more coffee (:D); I'm having a difficult time following. Most (or many) on this board home educate because they find fault with the public school system on some level. How is homeschooling because our schools are failing (in keeping children safe and failing them academically) any different than placing your child in a safe® private school... for essentially the same reasons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...