Deval Patrick has just announced a plan to encourage school districts to stop charging additional fees for bus transportation, sports, and extracurricular activities.
Under the plan, communities that are currently charging fees but promise to repeal them, and schools that are not charging fees and promise to stay that way, will receive $35 per student per year, in addition to Patrick’s proposed general local aid increase. From the press release:
Extracurricular and after-school opportunities are part of a complete education. If our ultimate goal is to educate the whole child, its bad education and fiscal policy to make important elements of a childs education depend on a familys ability to pay, said Deval Patrick.
We have been playing a fiscal shell game in this state. We have rolled back the income tax only to increase the burden being placed on the property tax and fees. Its time to put an end to this game, Patrick continued.
According to press reports, the Massachusetts Association of School Committees reported in 2005 that about 66 percent of school districts in the Commonwealth charge some type of fee for a program that used to be part of a public school education, up from just 15 percent six years ago.
“Fees are yet another example of the desperate measures public schools have been forced to take as we struggle to provide excellent education in the face of growing enrollments, inadequate state funding and increasing state and federal government demands, said Dr. V. James Marini, Superintendent of the Winchester Public Schools. We all know that public education should be funded by public dollars and should not be so dependent on the property tax or the ability of a particular community to pass an override. Deval Patrick understands the challenge educators and administrators are up against, and he recognizes that its time to give parents and communities a break.
… This plan is a good way to help parents and ensure that all students regardless of the capacity of their parents to pay an added fee have access to programs and services that provide a solid education, said David Roach, superintendent of the Millbury public school system.
Good policy, and good politics. Policy: at present, fees are a necessary but unfortunate part of school budgeting, and it really seems lousy to tell poor families that their kids can’t play football, join the band, etc.
Politics: some of us here at BMG have been banging the drum for months to get Patrick to tell the people of Massachusetts – specifically those who voted for the tax rollback and would do so again if they had the chance – how he is going to keep faith with them. IMHO, it’s not good enough to say that your town will be less likely to have Prop. 2-1/2 overrides, since that’s a wish, not a guarantee, and it’s hard to be too critical of families struggling to balance their checkbooks for preferring a bird in the hand to two in the bush. This proposal, by contrast, is a concrete way for Patrick to say “if we don’t roll the income tax back, then we can afford to get school districts to repeal their fees, and that saves you a bunch of money as well as being the right thing to do.” Smart move.
UPDATE: There seems to be some confusion in the comments as to how this $35 payment to the communities would work. To clarify: the community would receive $35 per student enrolled in the public schools, regardless of how many students were enrolled in activities that require fees. So it’s quite possible that this plan would equal or exceed the revenue a school system realizes from fees, even if most fees exceed $35, because not every student is enrolled in fee-based activities.
What an appalling idea — this is what happens when policy is made for politics’ sake.
<
p>
Schools that are charging $200 user fees aren’t going to repeal them for $35. If they could do that, the user fees would be $165. This may be a bonus for any school district charging a fee $50 and under, but I’m not aware of too many schools that charge that low.
<
p>
Meanwhile, the rich districts that can afford to forgo fee charges get even more in the kitty. Money comes from somewhere to pour into the budgets of wealthy districts around the state. This is a great plan to widen the achievement gap between rich and poor districts, and horrid by any other criteria. Why not just fund schools based on the amount of marble in the building?
The only position I’ve heard that makes sense on this came from Mihos. Change the law that allows districts to charge these fees in the first place.
<
p>
The original poster sounds “sold” on the idea that fees are necessary. I would challenge anyone who believes that to actually review their districts payables warrants and contracts. Ensure that their district is paying for:
<
p>
– meals
– out of state travel
– cell phones
– internet connections
– cars
– overtime
<
p>
Are all students paying the $200 fee? I would think not. Only the ones that use the bus/sporting teams/afterschool activities are. The schools are not getting $200 per student in fees, they are getting $200 per student who pays. It would make more sense, therefore, to see if each district’s total income from fees is less than or = $35 per student on average. But you are using a $200/student figure, which I surmise is probably fuzzy math.
<
p>
Again, I don’t KNOW that not every child is paying the optional fee, but I surmise they probably aren’t, especially, say, in Lowell. Correct me if I’m wrong.
<
p>
As a child who took part in many after school activities, from sports to band to music lessons, I can attest to the advantages having these things available to every child. I know my parents struggled financially most of the time to get me a flute rental or art lessons or swim classes. If they’d had to pay for all the rest of the things that should have been part of school, I would have probably missed out. It is well known that the students who engage in alternative activities like sports and music fare better than kids who don’t. It’s our responsibility to see that every child can afford to do these things. It should be part of the budget, end of story. I’ve always hated the stupidity of forcing parents to pay a school fee for sports, etc.
But our bus fee alone is $200/student. Then there are parking fees, sport fees, activity fees. Would they also include the other fees that sanctioned under C.71 s.26 — extended day Kindergarten, after-school programs…. What about the prom or overnight trips? I’ve heard from some parents that are paying close to $1,000 in fees and “extras”.
<
p>
You are right that the post says $35 per student (haven’t seen Patrick’s proposal myself), but sadly, I still don’t think it will be enough of an incentive.
has five children in elementary through high school. She used to not have to worry about paying for swimming, soccer and oboe (or whatever, karate was always extra). In the last four years, the school system has decided to charge fees for everything. Imagine having five children in extracurricular activities. I am certain she will be voting for Deval in this primary because he understands the difficult choices that parents are being forced to make — pay the fee or penalize the child. And, this is in a well-to-do neighborhood. What’s happening to inner-city youth?
<
p>
Why don’t we talk about the actuality of the situation and examples of those who are being hurt the most? What about the retirees in town who are being pitted against my neighbor on overrides that will maintain some level of funding for art, music and sports in the school system? With a .3% rollback in income taxes, maybe my neighbor can fund an activity or two if she can figure out which child deserves it the most. Problem is, next year the fees will go up because funding is insufficient. What then? Another override? Another rollback? Who is understanding that this problems is a never ending cycle that must be addressed?
<
p>
Yee-haw let’s give everyone a tax rollback and let them figure out how to deal with it themselves — put in on their shoulders. Let’s encourage the never ending battles between the elderly and young parents. Who cares? Don’t worry about it — you can send your child to a charter or private school where they can get whatever they need — as long as you’ve got the money to do it.
Isn’t the proposal $35.00 per student, not $35.00 per student who pays a fee? I think you have it wrong. Paying school districts $35.00 per student not to charge any fee will be an incentive even for those school districts that charge $200.
Assuming average of $200 per paying student.
<
p>
There are less than 1/6th of the students paying fees.
<
p>
6 x $35= $210 what if 25% of the students are paying $200?
<
p>
100 x $35= $3,500
<
p>
25 x $200= $5,000
<
p>
That represents a $1,500 loss to the system for every 100 students.
<
p>
I’m pretty sure some suburbs the fee paying percentage is mostly above 25%.
not per student who was previously paying a fee.
<
p>
For example, in our high school, the $35 per student would result in over $63,000 in additional revenue, far surpassing what we collect in fees.
Then a charge-to-parent fee elimination would mean increased demand (more student taking the bus; playing sports, band…).
<
p>
More demand means greater costs by provider, no?
<
p>
I’m thinking that school user fees is an effective cost containment mechanism that schools adminstrators should seriously consider before abandoning.
<
p>
Your 25%, if correct, might easily turn into 90% if the parent no longer has to pay the price for his child’s extra-curriculum. (it’s free, so use it!) Certainly the 25% would increase, but who knows by how much.
the buses to send the football team (ski team, chorus) cost the same whether the seats are empty or full. School districts are not interested in containing costs on the backs of kids who can’t afford co-curricular activities.
You describe an institution with fixed costs and no variable ones. So, that when a student undertakes an activity he costs the provider no extra dollars.
<
p>
Possible, I suppose, but unrealistic. More sports equals same buses perhaps, but more uniforms, more supervision, lockers, utilities. I’m no educator; I don’t know the extra costs, but there must be a variable component.
<
p>
<
p>
I’ve read that sentence at least 5 times, and don’t understand the point. Sorry.
I didn’t say schools, as institutions, had no variable costs. I was merely making the point that empty seats on a bus cost just as much as filled seats on the bus, in the main. Transporation costs are huge when you’re moving kids around for activities. You’re looking at $300 to $400 for a bus.
<
p>
Second, you said:
<
p>
<
p>
to which I responded with the sentence above. I’m sorry if my point wasn’t clear. I was trying to say that even though more kids will participate in co-curriculars if they are “free” and may end up costing the district more in some ways, schools are not interested in keeping their costs down by making sure the “poor” kids can’t afford to participate in these activities by charging high fees. Indeed, one of the major NEASC accreditation benchmarks is how accessible the school makes its co-curriculars to students; fees are considered a barrier.
<
p>
That makes sense.
<
p>
You (the school, NEASC, whoever) see fees as a barrier to participation.
<
p>
I, on the other hand, see the abandonment of fees as the invitation to students who have no real interest in participating but participate anyway because it’s free. And by participating, they drive up costs.
gary, i agree with iris, for different reasons.
<
p>
elimination of the fee will not drive up participation among kids who “have no real interest but participate anyway.”
<
p>
when you think about elasticity here, remember that there’s a price called “practice time.” lots of wind sprints in most sports. lots of teasing if you’re bad an activity, and possibly hazing. lots of lengthy rehearsals for the play when you could be home better using your leisure time on myspace.
<
p>
also, remember that the kid rarely pays the fee from his/her allowance or part-time job; parent does.
<
p>
but this comment:
<
p>
<
p>
has to be one of the most bizarre statements I’ve heard in ages.
<
p>
What happens to the children who might wish to try something new, but aren’t really sure it’s for them? Oops, sorry, Johnny, you don’t get to try it. We’re not wasting money on you.
<
p>
What happens to the kids who signs up for an activity out of pure boredom, because they have nothing else to do? Are lonely? Are trying to make new friends? Are trying to fit in? Are trying to please a parent? Sorry, Sally, go find something else to do. You don’t make the grade.
<
p>
Students don’t generally participate in school activities because they’re free. If it’s boring, it’s boring, and no amount of “hey, it’s free!” is going to keep kids engaged in any activity for long. That’s the sort of cynicism you learn as an adult.
<
p>
These kids may, indeed, have no “real” (and what does that really mean? do you get to define what is real or acceptable?) interest but sign up anyway. And you know what? As an educator, as a parent, and as a taxpayer, I applaud that kid. Applaud him or her for trying something new, trying to get involved, trying to find something to call his/her own. I encourage all students to get involved, join a club, try something new. If it doesn’t work out, so what. You tried it, you learned something about yourself. Schools are about opportunities to learn both in and out of the classroom. Have we become so jaded that we see a kid with only a curiosity, a minimal interest in an activity as a financial burden?
<
p>
Boy, it’s all about the allmighty buck, isn’t it?
It’s why it’s called the ‘dismal science’.
Isn’t the track coach paid the same regardless of whether he has 5 kids or 500?
But I’m an institution cynic (and coincidently a track coach, but that’s another story).
<
p>
Institutions don’t just maintain; they grow. Track coach gets 50 kids, needs an assistant who needs an office, and subscription to XC News and better uniforms, and shoes and spikes and a new track….
I knew you seemed like a trustworthy fellow.
<
p>
And the coach wants all that stuff even with only 10 kids; an assistant comes in handy every blessed Saturday from Labor Day until Memorial day.
“a charge-to-parent fee elimination would mean increased demand (more student taking the bus; playing sports, band…)”
<
p>
More students playing sports = fewer obese students
<
p>
More students playing in the band = more students better at math
<
p>
both would mean more students with self discipline, a work ethic, off the streets, etc.
More students playing in the band = more students better at math
<
p>
Is that tired argument still being kicked around? I’m a former music teacher, schooled on all the tactics imaginable to save the program in the face of budget cuts, and I’ve never chosen to spread that rumor.
<
p>
That said, I am against the use of fees in the public school system. If it’s external to the schools, fine. The problem comes when communities think they can offer every program under the sun. I’d prefer to have less choice, but have it all within the budget than to, in essence, subsidize activities for those who can afford the fees.
<
p>
That said, I don’t think the $35 per student price tag is going to be enough incentive. Before the legislature changed the law thereby allowing school committees to assess transportation fees, the state transportation reimbursement was $50 per student.
<
p>
As you said $35 is nothing, it doesn’t even come close to covering the student activity fees currently being charged. This proposal seems to be tailored to allow DP to say, “I am against school activity fees.” If the problem can be solved by a contribution from the state of $35 per pupil per activity (which is false) then the problem is not that bad.
<
p>
The fact is that school districts need to prioritize their needs. In my home town there was a grassroots rebellion against the school committee based on the presence of activity fees. The committee folded but reinstated the fees the following year when deep cuts in the education budget were enacted. The schools in the middle are the ones that are caught in the crunch. They have limited funds due to the fact that DOE $$ flows to the poor schools and the middle schools must get their $$ from the property tax. The rich schools don’t have to worry about the lack of DOE $$ as they are flush with cash.
About 65% of my high school – Swampscott – were involved in activities and sports, which at that time cost $50 or a little more than a hundred for sports. When you factor in that $35 – per student – it isn’t as large a deficit as it would be if 100% of students were involved. However, there are two things to remember: if the state, in good faith, contributed more to it – towns, in good faith, may be willing to take on a larger burden. Furthermore, Patrick’s plan is in addition to what will already be increased student aid. In actuality, with both things added together, towns should get far more aid altogether.
<
p>
PS: Swampscott is one of those “rich” districts. The year after I graduated, the fees skyrocketed because the town didn’t pass an override. Students had to pay hundreds of dollars (I think about $250 per sport, maybe more) – and the only reason all extracurricular activities weren’t cut was because the town’s citizens rallied and raised tens of thousands of dollars.
middle-class, suburban voters – you know, the people who have been deciding gubernatorial elections in MA for 16 years – can just write a check to their School District rather than use the Legislature as a pass through, therefore risking that those dollars will be ciphoned off during the budget process.
<
p>
p.s. There’s no more guarantee to this plan than property tax relief. Either way, the money passes through state government with the (politics of) hope that it arrives in the taxpayer’s district.
…you gonna give us more Ch. 70 to make that up if we cancel them?
<
p>
Didn’t think so.
that Chapter 70 needs a serious overhaul, and I hope it gets one. Whether that’s saving Chelmsford schools from total financial hell or getting the Cape more bus money, it should be part of the budget, not be an extra fee.
<
p>
But I guess you missed the part where there’d be more money per child for giving up those fees.
Frankly, it’s not a big deal for me. I pay $50 a year for a kid in highschool sports. And my town will waive the fee for anybody who claims hardship.
<
p>
Now, If I lived in Winchester (about $200) then I might have a beef about the athletic fees.
<
p>
I think Deval is right to go after the fee but I don’t think his solution will cut it.
<
p>
ANd like the previous poster. I know the money is getting into the right hands now so I’m glad to pay.
<
p>
Plus, this is a burden for only those people with kids in sports – why tick off every tax payer. Many a non-parent already resents that they pay taxes for schools they don’t use. (though that resentment is often misplaced)
I think you kind of answered your own question — the assertion that anyone without kids in school have no reason to support public schools would seem to be a very short-sighted way of looking at things. If you’re young and don’t have children yet, it’s important to invest in schools for the future (they don’t get better overnight). If your kids are already out of the school system, or even if you never send any family members to public schools, their quality has a profound impact on property values, crime, and the general atmosphere of your community. Good schools make for good places to live.
<
p>
Sure, that $50 you pay for high school sports isn’t too bad, especially when your town waives the fee for those who can’t afford it. But in many cases that’s just one of several fees, and the numbers can add up very quickly. After school programs like high school sports teams serve an entire community, because they give students healthy developmental outlets. That means they’ll be more likely to stay in school, resist dangerous activities, get better grades, and go on to make their home communities proud. And if they feel nurtured by the towns in which they grew up, perhaps they will return later on to settle with their own families. And for me, that’s easily worth chipping in for.
but I think all these user fees are a bad idea, even if they can be waived because of hardship. I am sure there are some kids who just do not bother to request the waiver out of shame. I think we all benefit from having after school programs easily accesible to all kids.
User fees make a ton of sense if you want parents and students to understand that nothing from government is free.
<
p>
Basic education is the responsibility of the government, but football and band? Come on. Most people sense the fairness about true user fees: Play football; pay the fee. Ride the bus; pay the fee. You pay for what you get, and you get what you pay for.
<
p>
Means test it, if you fear depriving the poorer families, but user fees work for toll road, for parks, for registering the deed when you buy a house. Why, for buses, band, soccer should it be different.
“Why, for buses, band, soccer should it be different. “
<
p>
Because we are dealing with kids and they are our future, regardless of whether they are your kids, my kids (not, I don’t have any) or someone else’s.
<
p>
Why should a student’s ability to participate in these character-building activities be dependent upon their parents?
<
p>
I want ALL students to have access to these activities and I am willing to pay taxes to make that happen. It is short sighted to think you save money by eliminating them. You end up with more kids on the street getting into trouble.
I don’t like means testing for anything integral to public education. Here is why:
<
p>
1) The values thing: I see a complete and rounded education as a very valuable public good that should be paid for by all and made available to all. Let’s just do it, all together.
<
p>
2) The stigma thing: It is real. I remember whispering about kids who got free lunches when I was in school. I have to believe it deters kids who need these programs the most.
<
p>
3) I question the administrative efficiency of means testing for all these things. Look at all the paperwork! Look at all the time spent filling out forms, checking up on documentation, and then, inevitably, dealing with the few cheats. Has anyone costed all that out?
<
p>
4) I want education dollars going to educate kids, not into administration (see #3).
If everyone is supposed to have an equal opportunity in their developmental stage, you can’t very well go charging hundreds of dollars to every kid in school. Not every family can afford it and not many of those people are willing to take on “charity.” So, those kids go without. They’re also the ones who flunk out more, go through more depressions, do more drugs and get in more trouble.
<
p>
So if you want society to generally suck, feel free to tell poor kids that they’re “learning nothing comes free.”
<
p>
Like prison. We pay lots of taxes for prison.
If you lived in Winchester you wouldn’t have to worry about $200.
$200 is a friggin TON of money to me. Basically, it’s what I live off of for a whole month.
I’m completely confused. If towns decide to eat hundreds of dollars per pupil in fees, they will receive $35 per student from the state? What is the incentive for the taxpayer in Norton, Sharon, and Andover (the three towns cited by the Patrick campaign on SHNS)? The district will have to figure out how to pay for fees that were previously being paid by parents in return for a really small fraction of that fee. Meanwhile, that really small fraction ($35) is coming from the those parents’ tax dollars, which have now travelled through the state budget process.
<
p>
This makes no sense.
Maybe you might want to look at it before you comment anymore.
OpenSociety, you have only been here a few weeks, so I’m really not looking for your permission to comment.
<
p>
If I have made a mistake, please point it out. Educate us, oh great one.
Did they charge fees for the reading program in your school?
and it looks exactly like what I have described. From SHNS:
<
p>
Obviously there are smart people over at the Patrick campaign who have done a bunch of research and run the numbers so that this makes the most sense for the most towns. Will it work for every town? I imagine not.
<
p>
The idea (as others have pointed out here) is that not every student currently pays the fee but the municipality would get the $35 for every student. So say the district has 200 students and half pay the fee and the fee is $50 (obviously these numbers are all made up for illustration). So currently the town takes in 100 times $50 or $5,000. If they decide to opt for the Patrick plan, they will get 200 times $35 for a total of $7,000. So the town has greater revenue under the Patrick plan than the current fee. (Obviously, if more than 70% of the students, or 140 student, pay the fee in my hypo, then its financially worth it).
<
p>
Somebody please correct me if I am wrong.
I checked my math a couple times to try to make sure I got it right!
This is where leadership is important in the corner office.
<
p>
My initial thought for this plan was “how is that fair to the districts that don’t charge fees in lieu of reduced services elsewhere? — they’re not going to get anything!”
<
p>
But we have to stop thinking like that if we want to make this state better. We have to believe — trust — that our government isn’t just about “bring back more money to the district”, but that it is about making our state better for everyone.
<
p>
Likewise we have to have a certain amount of faith that, if a district is charging students a fee to participate in extracurricular activies, that it needs the money. That may not be true for every district, particularly those dominated by people with the ideology that says “pay for what you use”. But I suspect that it is true in most.
<
p>
The underlying message here is dead-on — Extracurricular and after-school opportunities are part of a complete education. Furthering that goal in the state is a positive thing.
<
p>
That’s not leadership — it’s blind patriotism. I don’t how charismatic and leadershipy an executive is, I’m not going to align my interactions with a government on “faith” and “trust”. I prefer this quote:
<
p>
Is it $35 per activity or per student. Some students are in multipal activities. Might be an unfunded mandate. That could weaken cities and towns and drive up property taxes.
… about the “tax versus fee” argument. The following, from Gary, just seems crazy to me:
<
p>
“I, on the other hand, see the abandonment of fees as the invitation to students who have no real interest in participating but participate anyway because it’s free. And by participating, they drive up costs.”
<
p>
Do you remember being in school? Who participates in something in school simply because it’s free? There are two reasons kids participate in sports or other extra-curricular activities: 1. Their parents make them; 2. they want to.
<
p>
If you want to go ahead and tell little Suzie Pigtails she can’t be in the band because mom can’t afford the fee this year, and because you’re concerned she’s not really interested and just driving up cost, you go right ahead. But this is pretty much WHY I’m a Democrat. I worry about the kid first.
<
p>
Quoted for emphasis.
because she’s made of straw living in an imaginary land where increasing the cost of extra-curricular affects demand, but where decreasing the cost magically does not.
<
p>
By all means throw money at the poor, little pigtailed strawgirl because she could be real, and maybe some money will help, and more money is better than less, and she’s too proud to take charity as she walks miles to school uphill both ways through the snow, and it’s not your money to begin with, because “this is pretty much WHY [you’re] a Democrats: [you] worry about the kid first”, (Other Party Members eat their young we know) and consider next, or never, if the expense was prudent and did the action produce the desired outcome or some unintended consequence.
I get the feeling the Pigtails don’t live in your particular neighborhood.
<
p>
But I’m just going to be quiet now while you go ahead and confirm every stereotype and/or suspicion people have about the Republican party and its anti-working family agenda.
This will mean a lot to two groups in my town: Parents, and townies (many of them seniors) who no longer have kids in school but who have fond memories and who still root for the HS teams.
<
p>
I hope there are some similar ideas in the hopper. For instance, a dollar per resident for communities that keep libraries open 5 nights per week. Incentives for school systems that have a full-time librarian in every school. Incentives for full-time school nurses.
<
p>
Each of these initiatives would focus the debate about spending and taxes on the fact there there is something fundamentally wrong going on at the local level that the Republicans desperately want to ignore. This in turn will ratify Patrick’s support for boosting aid to cities and towns with income-tax revenues.
<
p>
Frankly, I hope the response to this is on the order of, “Fees for school programs are good because they teach kids nothing is free.” People hate these fees; such a response will draw a useful distinction.
Extra curricular activities were one of the most important parts of my high school education. I learned so much about responsibility, self-confidence, what I was capable of and who I could become. All that and I wasnt even in sports! Drama (Techie), Chorus, Band they were my sanctuary where I could be me. A well rounded complete education needs to include these opportunities and all taxpayers should share the cost. If you are a senior maybe you had kids in the public schools, if you are young maybe you will have kids in the public schools. If you dont have and never will have kids, hey maybe you went to the public schools. Other people without kids paid taxes so I could do those things and I know it is important for me to pay it forward.
<
p>
________________________________________
Vice Principal Wolters: I care about these kids just as much as you do. And if I’m forced to choose between Mozart and reading and writing and long division, I choose long division.
Glenn Holland: Well, I guess you can cut the arts as much as you want, Gene. Sooner or later, these kids aren’t going to have anything to read or write about.