Policy 122: to fee, or not?

The many comments that we've received concerning the proposed changes to Policy 122 - which would allow the district to begin charging fees for co-curricular activities - have been a terrific example of public comment providing the board with information and perspective we would not otherwise have had.

Many people indicated their opposition to the policy change even though they would be personally unaffected, since their children were no longer in school. Particularly impressive were the soon-to-graduate State High seniors who spoke to the issue.

Some of the most articulate arguments and insights came from students. One of the first to speak began with a particularly astute question: what is the history of the current policy?

Delving deep into institutional memory, we elicited help from a former board member: ”Policy 122 is (consistent) with the district mission … of educating the whole child. Co-curricular and extra-curricular activities provide opportunities for students to develop skills that are important for life-long success, (including) leadership, collaboration, communication, goal setting, the ability to address complex issues, and citizenship skills. (These) activities provide a different venue…for students to feel connected and explore different activities to help them find their talents and passions.”

In addition, “Policy 122 is part of the overall wellness … initiative of our district.  We want students to be physically active ... Studies show students engaging in high risk behaviors during after school hours when they are home alone with little or no supervision. We also know (that) students who most need these after school activities are the ones who can least afford to pay a fee.”

These ideas were echoed in the many comments that we received: extra-curricular activities provide opportunities for students to demonstrate leadership, to interact with students of different grades, to establish or maintain connections to the school - and, as the saying goes, to "unite talent and passion" Sports, in particular, promote the health and well-being of students, and provide a chance for students to challenge themselves in a safe environment. Several people wondered what "activities" students would be engaged in without these opportunities.

How would this change affect participation in "charitable" clubs? Should students be charged for an activity that provides a public service? One argument that particularly resonates with me is the impact this would have on the ability of students to explore new interests. Several students told us how they "stumbled" into an activity that they didn't know they liked until they got there - and probably wouldn't have tried if they were required to pay for it.

But probably the most common concern about the impact this would have on students without means.

The argument could be made that while approving this policy permits the district to charge fees, it doesn't actually put fees in place - but as I said at the last meeting, school board policy is a statement of district philosophy; a statement of what we believe to be important.

Around the table, no one believes that a student should be prevented from participating in extra-curricular activities because they don’t have the money, so that's not the issue. But as a number of people have pointed out, creating a system that that adequately addresses this concern creates additional administrative responsibility and expense.

This is the practical side of the argument. Although the Cost Control Committee suggested a potential savings of $250,000, that number is based on several assumptions that are probably overly optimistic. One student, using an elegant reference to calculus and cost/supply curves, made the point that you cannot assume that participation rates will remain the same. When you increase the cost of something you essentially reduce demand. (As the price increases, fewer people will participate.)

Another assumption is a per-activity fee of $50, which seems to strike most people as excessive. If a student is involved in multiple activities, would they be charged for each one? What about families with more than one student? Every accommodation you make further reduces the economic benefit - until you reach the point where it's probably just not worth it.

Plus, how would one implement such a procedure without stigmatizing some students?

A better approach, I think, would be to begin by recognizing that we probably have more offerings than we really need. Until now, we have not had a mechanism for evaluating every activity, in order to weed out those that are underused or no longer serve their original purpose. In other words, rather than charging students for participation, perhaps we don't have to offer quite so many options.