<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Elective fees gone</title>
		<description>Comments for Elective fees gone at http://kearneycourier.com , comment 1 to 1 out of 1 comments</description>
		<link>http://kearneycourier.com</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:13:43 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>What does this 1970s case say about Incentive fees?</title>
			<link>http://kearneycourier.com/200905073526/education/academics/elective-fees-gone.html#comment-25</link>
			<description>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. - Kent</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 07:46:05 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
