Included in my ‘homework’ was an explanation about the newly implemented student activity fee and a form to complete and include with your check. The student activity fee is supposed to help offset the cost of providing athletic and other after-school programs to students.
The fee is set at $50 per family. Now, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that families who have, say, three children involved in after-school activities versus people like me, who have one, are essentially paying a lower per-child rate. The rate for that family breaks out at about $16 per kid, versus mine, who’s costing the full $50.
What was the school board thinking? How did they arrive at this figure? Isn’t the impact of a family of three kids on costs to provide after-school services more significant than one, and shouldn’t that cost be borne fairly by those families whose impact is greater? In other words, shouldn’t the family of three be paying $150? Or, should the family of one be paying $16?
Whatever that actual offset point is that the school board was trying to arrive at, they have clearly not assessed it fairly. I personally know of several parents who have contacted Methacton to complain about this, but from what I’m hearing it was treated in a dismissive manner to the parents as a minor issue. I have to wonder how many parents did what I did, which is to blow through the packet of papers, sign where necessary, write checks where necessary, and move on. I didn’t catch that the fee was per family, not per child. I have to believe if more parents realized this, there might be more phone calls to the school district.
And by the way, ‘fee’ does not include transportation. Your student who stays after school to participate in activities has no ride home. There are no more ‘late buses’; that was one of the budget cuts the school district implemented. Transportation is on you to arrange and pay for, if necessary.
There seems to be no logic at work here, but then again, this is the same school board that built a school many residents in both Lower Providence and Worcester believe we did not need, and renegotiated the superintendant’s contract early to give him a healthy raise and bonus, at the same time allowing the teacher’s contract to languish for a couple of years without resolution.
