North Bennet Street School failed to provide, to the extent they promised; and to the extent they had provided in previous years to other students, the after-hours use of their jewelry workshop so that I could complete my projects in an acceptable time frame. I was, therefore, forced to withdraw from the course and forfeit the $7,290 in tuition I paid them for the first semester of the course.
With the assistance of an attorney, and at an additional cost of $750, I sent the school a demand letter asking for the refund of my tuition. The school has responded with untrue statements and has assailed my character by stating that I "verbally abused" a fellow student. These were all vicious and hurtful lies against me.
I contacted the Department of Education. They could not help me because they said that the school is structured in such a way so as not to require licensure by the Department of Education.
I contacted the state of Massachusetts Attorney General's Office. They accepted and thanked me for my complaint and all the supporting documentation I sent them, however, they told me they could not help me because North Bennet Street School is a non-profit entity.
I sent a complaint to the Better Business Bureau. The statement they have posted, pending closure of the case, is slanted to make the school appear they have gone out of their way to satisfy my complaint, but that I refuse to be placated.
I am an over-fifty-year-old woman seeking training in a new career. I found the name of this school in a trusted trade magazine. After doing my research to find out if any negative information had been posted about North Bennet Street School, and not finding such, I signed up for their course.
I had received warning that this was an extremely aggressive course. Because of my age, this caused me some concern. However, because I was promised that the workshop would remain open several nights of the week and sometimes until late into the evening, I believed I would be able to keep up with the younger students by taking advantage of this promised provision.
On the first day of class, the jewelry students were handed a document entitled "Shop Use After 5:00 and on Saturdays". This document outlines the rules for shop use on "Tuesday and Thursday until 9:30 pm" and "Saturday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm." Though they stated that this document was written primarily for the wood-working students, there was sufficient enough similarity between the policies and hours of the two departments so as to not justify having to print a separate document for the jewelry students. Not once, however, was the workshop open late into the evening. Classroom hours ended at 3:00 daily and the workshop would be made available after 3:00 only when an advanced student, who could monitor the workshop, would stay a little later to work on his or her project. Sometimes, too, an instructor would stay after 3:00. This was certainly not the "late into the evening" arrangement that had been promised me at my first interview with them where they stated they had made arrangements with a former student to keep the workshop open late on a regularly-scheduled basis. This arrangement with this student was canceled within the first few weeks of the semester. Therefore, the after-hours provision was seriously cut back.
Because of this, I began to fall behind on my projects and was receiving unacceptable grades. I was told also that I was not allowed to take my projects home to work on them. When I complained, to Rosemary, the head instructor, and in writing to Claire Fruitman, the assistant director and Miguel Gomez-Ibanez, the executive director; the school suggested that I hire a school-approved tutor, at additional cost to myself, to help me improve the quality of my work. Though I gave this suggestion some consideration, I felt I could not afford the additional cost of hiring a tutor on top of the $7,290 tuition cost for the first semester only; and the extra cost of nearly $1000 in required course materials! Besides, I felt I did not need extra tutoring to bring my projects up to acceptable quality. All I needed was the more time that sufficient after-hours access to the workshop would bring! I was eventually told by Rosemary, the head instructor, that classroom hours alone were deemed sufficient for completion of all course projects and that any extra hours ever made available for project completion were to be considered only "icing on the cake".
I fell into complete despair. At the end of the semester Rosemary called me into her office and said she believed I was struggling. She told me that she did not believe I should continue with the course. She told me that the school would not be restoring the extra-hours to the workshop to the level that had previously existed.
In one last vain attempt at a resolution, I called Miguel Gomez-Ibanez, the executive director once again to see if he could help me. He refused to discuss the matter any further with me and told me he would be happy to arrange a meeting among the three of us, Rosemary, Claire and myself, to try to resolve the issue. Rather than meet with me, Rosemary and Claire arranged a "test" for me they said that if I could pass, I could continue in the course. I asked Claire, once again, if she planned to re-institute the after-hours workshop program. When she stated that she could not promise this, I realized that if I stayed I'd be facing the same situation the following semesters.
I felt I had no alternative but to involuntarily withdraw from the course. If the school had informed me in the beginning, as they did later in the course, that the hours of after-class access to the workshop would be severely cut back, I would not have risked signing up for such an expensive course. I fully understand the limitations that come with age and I knew I would be seriously disadvantaged and struggling to overcome them.
I am still suffering from shock and disbelief that a long-standing, reputable, non-profit organization, such as this one, would behave in such an irresponsible manner and stoop to such depths.
0 comments