Sun 4/14

[brant]

District 204 approves fee increases


April 14, 2010
By KATHY CICHON [e-mail]
Facing a deadline for assembling registration packets for next school year, the Indian Prairie District 204 Board of Education gave its blessing to increased registration, technology and activity fees.
Parents can expect to pay $5 more for registration of each child. Currently grades K-5 pay $70, grades 6-8 pay $90 and high school registration is $100.
"We haven't looked at the registration fee in five years," board member Dawn DeSart said. "I support these fees."
While District 204 will not be the highest in the area for technology fees, it will be on the higher end, Holm said. But that could change as districts everywhere are looking to increase revenues to make up for state budget cuts. Technology fees will increase from $30 to $40 next year.
"That is probably one of the hardest-hit areas of the budget is technology," Holm said.
The fee increases are just one of many measures being implemented by Indian Prairie to make up for the expected $12.2 million reduction in general state aid to the district for the 2011 budget. These cuts come on top of $9.2 million the district had to cut earlier in the year in order to reach a balanced budget.
Last month the board voted to lay off 145 non-tenured teachers, and the district is still considering facets of the cost-savings plan that include reductions in programs. While no programs have been eliminated, the district is calling for the reduction in program expenditures.
Other fee increases include increasing the athletics/activities fees. At the middle school level the fee will double from $50 to $100. High school fees will double from $80 to $160.
Also proposed is increasing the driver's education fee from $200 to $350 and implementing an after-school activity bus fee. The current proposal for the bus is $1 per ride, but board members indicated they would consider a flat fee structure as well.
Board President Curt Bradshaw said the community has made it clear they would rather pay a fee to keep programs intact.
"They would very much rather have a user fee in place and have the option of continuing with the activity than have no option," Bradshaw said.
The district, he said, has been able "to preserve a great deal of programs with the fees."
Bradshaw praised staff for not looking at fee increases as the first option to fill the budget gap.
"Less than 5 percent of your proposal relies on fees," Bradshaw said.
Superintendent Kathy Birkett stressed that fee increases will not keep students from participating because they can't afford the cost.
"We have a variety of avenues that are committed to making sure no student is denied an opportunity," Birkett said.

[macrockett]

Increasing fees, cutting programs, increasing class sizes...that is certainly going to draw more families to District 204. Sounds like the State, in attracting new business. But I guess you have to close the funding gap....

Now what are you going to do in FY 2012? Are you going to hope somehow the State gets its act together? Are you going to raise salaries? Are you going to rely on new growth or inflation?

Maybe you could start looking at D204 as the business it is. Start understanding that the goal of the business is to educate our children. With that in mind, you protect that core goal by understanding that resources are finite.

You, therefore, understand you must justify every penny you spend. You don't spend a dime unless it absolutely contributes to satisfying the goal of education. You do not take for granted that the resources that are here today may not be here tomorrow.

You avoid the temptation of spending on items that you can do without, as they are not absolutely essential to your core goal and, more importantly, because you realize you may need those assets (resources) tomorrow.

You pay attention to the environment around you with the understanding that you do not operate in a vacuum and that your surroundings are dynamic.

[Arch]

Stop making sense.

[macrockett]

Maybe I, we, should just sit down and shut up and

[brant]

I believe that our fearless leaders on the SB never took in account that running the SD was a business. For some of them (and we all know who) it was only about what would benefit them, making decisions and ignoring the everyday costs. I have wonder about some of our current and past SB members how they would actually run a business like many of us. I am guessing not well. As much as some people disliked the Slate of Four these were people who knew finance. Instead we elected the PTA. No wonder we are in such a bad state.

[macrockett]

Apr 14, 2010 9:19:33 GMT -6 brant said:

I believe that our fearless leaders on the SB never took in account that running the SD was a business. For some of them (and we all know who) it was only about what would benefit them, making decisions and ignoring the everyday costs. I have wonder about some of our current and past SB members how they would actually run a business like many of us. I am guessing not well. As much as some people disliked the Slate of Four these were people who knew finance. Instead we elected the PTA. No wonder we are in such a bad state.

Agree brant. But you have to give the head of the IPPC and the underlying PTAs credit, they sure know how to get out the vote! But at the same time, those groups and the people they vote for are running our District into the ground. If that is what they are voting for they are surely getting their wish!

[Arch]

They got what they wanted, now how come they're complaining?

[brant]

Apr 14, 2010 9:37:38 GMT -6 macrockett said:

Apr 14, 2010 9:19:33 GMT -6 brant said:

I believe that our fearless leaders on the SB never took in account that running the SD was a business. For some of them (and we all know who) it was only about what would benefit them, making decisions and ignoring the everyday costs. I have wonder about some of our current and past SB members how they would actually run a business like many of us. I am guessing not well. As much as some people disliked the Slate of Four these were people who knew finance. Instead we elected the PTA. No wonder we are in such a bad state.

Agree brant. But you have to give the head of the IPPC and the underlying PTAs credit, they sure know how to get out the vote! But at the same time, those groups and the people they vote for are running our District into the ground. If that is what they are voting for they are surely getting their wish!

Oh they got out the vote all right. It was all about getting their new school and not thinking about the costs and other problems that went with it. But blame also has to be with the folks from the NV area that was not effected by the changes. They didn't care enough to come out and vote therefore the above mentioned costs and problems etc didn't matter to them either as long as they were not moved.

[casey]

Apr 14, 2010 8:08:51 GMT -6 brant said:

District 204 approves fee increases

Other fee increases include increasing the athletics/activities fees. At the middle school level the fee will double from $50 to $100. High school fees will double from $80 to $160.
Superintendent Kathy Birkett stressed that fee increases will not keep students from participating because they can't afford the cost.
"We have a variety of avenues that are committed to making sure no student is denied an opportunity," Birkett said.

Does anyone else see a problem here? KB can say what she wants about fee increases not keeping students from participating. In theory that sounds wonderful. Now explain that to the kid who wants to do the sport but their family says simply the cost is too much. There are plenty of kids who will fall into that category even kids in TG/WE (shocking huh?). These are families who would never technically qualify for reduced fees and are not low income per se but families who simply will say they can't afford it. What do you think happens when a TG kid shows up to the coach and says their parent does not want to pay $160 for a sport? Sad for anyone and I know it will happen. What does KB/administrators/coaches plan to do to ensure that all kids will still have the opportunity?

The other issue I have is when they talk about reducing the number of athletic contests and invitationals. I wonder if they've really stepped back and thought about this....It may work fine in some of the sports which have a higher number of contests (football, volleyball, soccer, basketball, water polo, etc.) but there are some sports that would take a bigger hit than others. For example if you take away 2 contests from the swim team that would leave a total of 3 dual meets. Take a look at the swim calendar and you'll find that there are a total of 5 dual meets only plus invitationals. Most kids do not compete in the invitational meets (varsity only) so you are expecting a parent to double fees to $160 and a kid would swim only 3 meets all year? Does that seem right? Same thing with gymnastics - dual meets are the only opportunity for most gymnasts to compete (only varsity goes to invitationals). A family would be paying $160 to compete 3 dual meets - heck, those costs are comparable to club prices. Track and field are limited contests too. Personally I think it will be hard to keep kids competitive and interested if they're given such limited opportunities to compete.

I hope the admin/AD takes a look at this and leaves some of the sports alone particularly the 3 that I mentioned. Lobbing 2-3 contests off a soccer schedule is not ideal but when they have a total of 12 conference/non-conference matches and 6 invitational matches (based on Athletics 2000 information) that's a big difference than swimming's 5 dual meets and 5 invitationals. I'm not picking on soccer but I just used that sport to demonstrate my point that cutting 2 contests across the board is not really equitable. Put another way taking 2 contests out of swimming is a loss of 40% contests and taking 2 out of soccer is a loss of 16%. There's a big difference especially when you're talking doubling the costs. Think about the number of basketball games. Looking at the WV schedule for girls this year, there are a total of 17 games and 3 tournaments. I'd think it would not effect the bottom-line as much for basketball to lose 2 contests but again, track, gymnastics, swimming that's a big hit..

If any administrators/ADs are reading this board, please stop and think before you sabotage some of the lesser known sports.

[casey]

Someone just told me that it's JV sports only. Does anyone know for sure?

[al]

Don't know if it is related, or if this has happened in year's past, but saw on the NVHS Marching Band calendar that there are only three (3!) home games, one of which is at North Central. So the Varsity football team and Marching Wildcats are paying increased (doubled) activities fees for the "honor" of using their home field twice?

[doctorwho]

Apr 14, 2010 12:09:39 GMT -6 casey said:

Apr 14, 2010 8:08:51 GMT -6 brant said:

District 204 approves fee increases

Other fee increases include increasing the athletics/activities fees. At the middle school level the fee will double from $50 to $100. High school fees will double from $80 to $160.
Superintendent Kathy Birkett stressed that fee increases will not keep students from participating because they can't afford the cost.
"We have a variety of avenues that are committed to making sure no student is denied an opportunity," Birkett said.

Does anyone else see a problem here? KB can say what she wants about fee increases not keeping students from participating. In theory that sounds wonderful. Now explain that to the kid who wants to do the sport but their family says simply the cost is too much. There are plenty of kids who will fall into that category even kids in TG/WE (shocking huh?). These are families who would never technically qualify for reduced fees and are not low income per se but families who simply will say they can't afford it. What do you think happens when a TG kid shows up to the coach and says their parent does not want to pay $160 for a sport? Sad for anyone and I know it will happen. What does KB/administrators/coaches plan to do to ensure that all kids will still have the opportunity?

The other issue I have is when they talk about reducing the number of athletic contests and invitationals. I wonder if they've really stepped back and thought about this....It may work fine in some of the sports which have a higher number of contests (football, volleyball, soccer, basketball, water polo, etc.) but there are some sports that would take a bigger hit than others. For example if you take away 2 contests from the swim team that would leave a total of 3 dual meets. Take a look at the swim calendar and you'll find that there are a total of 5 dual meets only plus invitationals. Most kids do not compete in the invitational meets (varsity only) so you are expecting a parent to double fees to $160 and a kid would swim only 3 meets all year? Does that seem right? Same thing with gymnastics - dual meets are the only opportunity for most gymnasts to compete (only varsity goes to invitationals). A family would be paying $160 to compete 3 dual meets - heck, those costs are comparable to club prices. Track and field are limited contests too. Personally I think it will be hard to keep kids competitive and interested if they're given such limited opportunities to compete.

I hope the admin/AD takes a look at this and leaves some of the sports alone particularly the 3 that I mentioned. Lobbing 2-3 contests off a soccer schedule is not ideal but when they have a total of 12 conference/non-conference matches and 6 invitational matches (based on Athletics 2000 information) that's a big difference than swimming's 5 dual meets and 5 invitationals. I'm not picking on soccer but I just used that sport to demonstrate my point that cutting 2 contests across the board is not really equitable. Put another way taking 2 contests out of swimming is a loss of 40% contests and taking 2 out of soccer is a loss of 16%. There's a big difference especially when you're talking doubling the costs. Think about the number of basketball games. Looking at the WV schedule for girls this year, there are a total of 17 games and 3 tournaments. I'd think it would not effect the bottom-line as much for basketball to lose 2 contests but again, track, gymnastics, swimming that's a big hit..

If any administrators/ADs are reading this board, please stop and think before you sabotage some of the lesser known sports.

Asking this group of knuckleheads to stop and think first -- good luck with that for anyone.

However Casey I agree with you 100% , IF the schedule has to be cut then use a set % to cut contests by.
Sports like volleyball/basketball/softball/baseball have a larger base to draw from - than do many other sports. So cut 5% or each or 10% - but not the same number of matches from sports that have 8 than those that have 25 - only common sense- but then we're not long on that around here anyway.

Of course I am still hearing from a little bird that the cuts may be more significant than that as it becomes more apparent no one is writing us a full boat check.
Freshman and varsity sports only ? JV and varsity sports only ? ( Soph appears to be gone in any senario I hear but none of this will be announced until after the caravan has their shot..


--again make sure your summer sports camp checks are refundable

Stipends for coaches another hot topic almost everywhere- and if taken away for all but varsity, you won't have to worry about where the cuts will begin.

For school districts that do not have to cut as deeply as we will, if not this year- then certainly next - they will have advantages for playoff spots in things like football.. where there is also a limited schedule.

Of course we'll get to play the reduced schedule on some wonderful field turf..

[doctorwho]

Apr 14, 2010 15:28:40 GMT -6 al said:

Don't know if it is related, or if this has happened in year's past, but saw on the NVHS Marching Band calendar that there are only three (3!) home games, one of which is at North Central. So the Varsity football team and Marching Wildcats are paying increased (doubled) activities fees for the "honor" of using their home field twice?

I keep hearing the sports cuts are much deeper than you are being told- but have to stay tuned for right before or just after school year ends. I'm not close enough to know that - but the person telling me sure as heck is.

[al]

don't know how they can have it much worse than two games on our turf...