Joomla Login LightBox powered by WowJoomla.com

Teachers worry about funding for classes after school board action

Kearney Board of Education members voted unanimously at their April 16 meeting to remove all fees associated with high school elective classes, including art, foods, child development, band and woods courses. The fees, according to Superintendent Dr. Chris Belcher, could possibly infringe on student’s rights, based on his research of a 1970s court case.

“I’m concerned that we might have a legality issue,” Belcher said at the meeting. “I recommend to remove all fees associated with student electives.”

Following his recommendation, the board did just that, but not with out a lengthy discussion first.

Board member Mark Kelly said that by having students pay elective fees, the students are essentially “buying” their grades. He added if students pay for extra projects out of pocket, they should not be considered as extra credit because it was along the same line.

“If it takes a cost to get a grade, then it’s wrong,” Kelly said. “Students shouldn’t be able to buy a grade.”

However, veteran art teacher Pam Haahr said she was concerned that by removing fees students would have less access to materials needed to gain the course’s objective curriculum. She said schools in other districts charge fees for classes like hers, and she worries that ultimately students will have to pay with their educations instead of their checkbooks.

“My photography classes have always had a $45 lab fee,” Haahr said. “I don’t know where that extra money is going to come from. That’s a lot to have to pick up. Hopefully, if there are cuts, we can find out early enough to adjust our curriculum. I just don’t want to see elective classes like this cut or watered down because in the end it will hurt the kids.”

Haahr said in her 17 years in Kearney, she had not seen the fees as an issue because for those who could not afford them, she offered payment options. She and others proposed a supply list, like younger grades have, as an alternative to removing fees.

“I’m not in anyway going against what the board has decided, I’m just hoping to come up with some sort of alternative,” Haahr said. “As long as our programs continue to be supported, I don’t see there being a problem. I just want parents, students and our administration to support electives as they do sports. And other classes require equipment like instruments and digital cameras that the students have to supply. So I still don’t see how this is going to be a benefit overall.”

Kearney High School Principal Randy Wepler said he didn’t see the fee removal as a negative action and hoped it would provide additional educational opportunities to students who might not other wise take an elective class.

“I think that I speak for our building administration when I say that we’re OK with this,” Wepler said. “The downside is that we’ll have to spread the building budget out more. The upside is that more kids will have the opportunity to take electives classes.”

At the beginning of the school year, students also began paying parking fees. Wepler said he’d like to see that money go back into the high school to help fund cuts such as this.

“Of course we’d like to see that money,” Wepler said. “Currently, we don’t. But regardless, these actions are for the better.”

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

What does this 1970s case say about Incentive fees?
written by Kent, May 12, 2009

What about the costs connected to participation in incentive events related directly to student performance in core classes? Would the ruling have any impact on that as well? Meaning that parents are required to fork over hard-earned bucks so Straight A Suzy and Sammy can go watch a movie or play at some amusement park as a class field trip that is out of district, taking our tax dollars away from our own backyard? If we are no longer permitted to 'pay to play' on elective classes, then where does the 'pay to play' logic fit into extra-curricular events? Is there consistency in the ruling or are we threading a needle (legal loophole)? A continuation of 'bleeding the stone' approach the district is taking with respect to fiscal responsibility? Are my questions off base? Do they miss the target? Thanks for your consideration.

• 
• +0
• 
•