Talking with some friends (also Ridgewood parents) about the announcement that the school district has moved to a new system for online payments for things like activity fees, lunches, etc. One friend complained that the district is now "nickel and diming" us with the $3.50 transaction fee for online payments. She said something like, "the system was working fine before, and it was free!" Another parent commented that the District had successfully found a new revenue stream.
I give a mixed thumbs up and thumbs down on this. On the one hand, a better online payment system, that lets parents "load" their account with cash and then use it as necessary, seems good. I never did the online lunch ordering with my kids, so I'm not sure how it works if you order a lunch and then don't end up using it. Do you get your money back? It seems like with this system, you could order lunches but then if your child doesn't actually receive a lunch, then your account won't be charged? That's what it sounds like to me. I also like that now high school students will be able to draw on the account to buy lunch. Previously there was never a cashless way to get lunch at RHS. I don't know how it works, though. (Swipe your ID card? Do they even have magnetic stripes?)
I guess I can see an advantage to being able to check my account online in Skyward, then make payments, etc., in one place. (Although I notice that the instructions say you have to do activity fee payments and lunch payments separately, so that's not such a time saver.) I read that the system will allow me to "monitor" my child's food selections...I'm not sure what that means exactly. If kids are in elementary school, there isn't a "selection" is there? Don't they just get whatever is served that day? Maybe it means middle school and high school. Eh. Maybe that's important for some people to know if your kid had a sandwich or a cookie. I guess I'm neutral on that feature.
On the other hand, it does irk me that the District says they are charging the $3.50 as a "convenience fee." It's not really more convenient for me to use Skyward vs. Community Pass. Whether I click on this URL or that URL, neither one is more convenient than the other.
It might have been better if the District had explained that the previous processing of online payments with Community Pass also cost $$ per transaction -- only in the past, the cost was absorbed by the District. It was never "free." It was just free for parents. There is a difference. (From what I understand, the District was spending around $30,000 per year between the user fee and the transaction fees.)
The reality is, now the cost of processing online transactions will be paid for by only those parents using the service, instead of being paid for by all taxpayers. This seems fair to me. I just think it wasn't explained well.
So I give the new online payment system a thumbs up, but the communications about it a thumbs down.
Showing posts with label activity fees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label activity fees. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
More NJ districts are charging activity fees.
A recent survey by the New Jersey School Boards Association showed that approximately 40% of districts charge activity fees for students involved in extracurricular activities. Of those districts that charge activity fees, half charge a flat fee, and 34.6 percent charge a per-activity fee. (Ridgewood charges a flat fee for students in the middle schools and high school.)
Click here to see more detailed results on the survey.
A few selected comments from the survey results:
Our district has charged for activities for the past 10 years or so. We instituted them after several budget defeats and thought it would have a positive effect on parent/voter turnout … but so far, it hasn't seemed to work out. We have had surprisingly little reaction to the fees.
We discussed this for last year but decided that, although we could have used the money, we had to make sure that we had a policy in place and we were not going down the path of poor implementation like so many districts have.
I don't understand why everyone thinks when they get to high school, sports and other activities should be free. If they want the extras and the district does not have the money, they must be willing to pay. It's better than cutting the program!
I am not in favor of charging for activities/sports that are run through the schools. It is important that we encourage participation in activities/sports for many reasons. It's proven that kids who participate are better students.
It is an unfortunate necessity. Co-curriculars are a critical part of a student's education, but the state's failure to make good on its constitutional obligation to fund schools according to its own formula leads us down the slippery slope of having parents pay for "extras" that aren't really extra at all. Sad times for education in New Jersey
With 2 percent cap, activity fees may be the only way to protect extra curricular & co-curricular programs.
It is an unfortunate requirement in today's economic climate.
We have looked at this in the past, and will probably look at it in the future. At the moment we prefer not to impose this type of fee.
Extracurricular activities should be considered part of the essential educational experience and should be fully funded through the existing revenue streams.
We have raised the required number of participating students for clubs and activities, which has reduced the number of clubs and activities, and hence reduced some of our costs. Also, we have secured grants from the freeholder board to fund our after-school tutoring/homework club and our girls' and boys' running clubs.
We are introducing activity fees starting in the 2011-2012 school year. We felt it was time to take a small step into this area, especially when presenting a balanced budget is increasingly difficult.
Click here to see more detailed results on the survey.
A few selected comments from the survey results:
Our district has charged for activities for the past 10 years or so. We instituted them after several budget defeats and thought it would have a positive effect on parent/voter turnout … but so far, it hasn't seemed to work out. We have had surprisingly little reaction to the fees.
We discussed this for last year but decided that, although we could have used the money, we had to make sure that we had a policy in place and we were not going down the path of poor implementation like so many districts have.
I don't understand why everyone thinks when they get to high school, sports and other activities should be free. If they want the extras and the district does not have the money, they must be willing to pay. It's better than cutting the program!
I am not in favor of charging for activities/sports that are run through the schools. It is important that we encourage participation in activities/sports for many reasons. It's proven that kids who participate are better students.
It is an unfortunate necessity. Co-curriculars are a critical part of a student's education, but the state's failure to make good on its constitutional obligation to fund schools according to its own formula leads us down the slippery slope of having parents pay for "extras" that aren't really extra at all. Sad times for education in New Jersey
With 2 percent cap, activity fees may be the only way to protect extra curricular & co-curricular programs.
It is an unfortunate requirement in today's economic climate.
We have looked at this in the past, and will probably look at it in the future. At the moment we prefer not to impose this type of fee.
Extracurricular activities should be considered part of the essential educational experience and should be fully funded through the existing revenue streams.
We have raised the required number of participating students for clubs and activities, which has reduced the number of clubs and activities, and hence reduced some of our costs. Also, we have secured grants from the freeholder board to fund our after-school tutoring/homework club and our girls' and boys' running clubs.
We are introducing activity fees starting in the 2011-2012 school year. We felt it was time to take a small step into this area, especially when presenting a balanced budget is increasingly difficult.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Raising Fees?
At the last Board of Ed meeting, we began discussing raising fees. The Finance Committee worked on and presented proposals to raise both Activity Fees and Facilities Use Fees. We only started discussing the ideas -- nothing is ready for a vote yet. But it could be soon.
Here's a little background: The Student Activity Fee at the middle schools is $65 and at the high school is $75. These fees have remained unchanged since they were instituted by the Board in 1995. Facilities Use fees are charged to outside groups who use school facilities, for example the BF auditorium is used to present recitals or programs by Irine Fokine ballet school. (This is just one example.) There is no rental charge for groups directly affiliated with the schools, nor non-profit organizations that serve youth, nor Village government and other recreation activities sponsored by the Village. The fees charged to outside groups are fairly low (in my opinion). For example, the BF auditorium currently costs $400 to rent for 4 hours, and would cost $500 under the new schedule. The GW auditorium rent would go from $200 to $300, and the elementary school auditoriums would go from $150 to $200. There's a complete schedule of fees for other types of facilities, including cafeterias, classrooms and gyms. (Click here for the proposed policy revision for facilities use and fees, as discussed by the Board on February 2.) The existing fees have been in place since at least 2002 and possibly earlier.
OK, after all that background, here's what I'm wondering. On the one hand, it makes sense to raise fees to increase our revenue in this tight budget year. Our activity fees are relatively low compared to other local districts. I think Glen Ridge charges $100 per student. Since our activity fee hasn't been changed in 14 years, it does not seem unreasonable. On the other hand, is it wise for us to increase fees right when district families are struggling with job loss and the unstable economy? Is the smart solution to raise the fees, being fiscally responsible for the District and getting a little more revenue (because every little bit counts)? Or is the smart thing to give parents & community members a break and wait. I honestly don't know what I think. We'll be discussing this again, probably at the February 23 Board meeting. I'd love to hear some opinions on this...
Here's a little background: The Student Activity Fee at the middle schools is $65 and at the high school is $75. These fees have remained unchanged since they were instituted by the Board in 1995. Facilities Use fees are charged to outside groups who use school facilities, for example the BF auditorium is used to present recitals or programs by Irine Fokine ballet school. (This is just one example.) There is no rental charge for groups directly affiliated with the schools, nor non-profit organizations that serve youth, nor Village government and other recreation activities sponsored by the Village. The fees charged to outside groups are fairly low (in my opinion). For example, the BF auditorium currently costs $400 to rent for 4 hours, and would cost $500 under the new schedule. The GW auditorium rent would go from $200 to $300, and the elementary school auditoriums would go from $150 to $200. There's a complete schedule of fees for other types of facilities, including cafeterias, classrooms and gyms. (Click here for the proposed policy revision for facilities use and fees, as discussed by the Board on February 2.) The existing fees have been in place since at least 2002 and possibly earlier.
OK, after all that background, here's what I'm wondering. On the one hand, it makes sense to raise fees to increase our revenue in this tight budget year. Our activity fees are relatively low compared to other local districts. I think Glen Ridge charges $100 per student. Since our activity fee hasn't been changed in 14 years, it does not seem unreasonable. On the other hand, is it wise for us to increase fees right when district families are struggling with job loss and the unstable economy? Is the smart solution to raise the fees, being fiscally responsible for the District and getting a little more revenue (because every little bit counts)? Or is the smart thing to give parents & community members a break and wait. I honestly don't know what I think. We'll be discussing this again, probably at the February 23 Board meeting. I'd love to hear some opinions on this...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
