Charging students for enrollment doesn’t make sense

Some comments regarding student fees in USD 443:  As everyone knows, the economy is bad, which has forced cuts in some programs.
    The latest were those we made in capital outlay projects at the May 11 board meeting. Capital outlay involves physical things, like repairing roofs, parking lots and heating systems. We made enough capital outlay cuts to put our budget in the black for next year. After these cuts were achieved, we discussed raising the local option budget (LOB).
     We decided not to do this, since the maximum amount would have increased the property tax $29.25 per year (or $2.44 per month) on a $100,000 house. Therefor, we decided NOT to go for the LOB increase.
  After both the capital outlay and the LOB had been decided and the budget was successfully in the black, we moved to the next agenda item concerning student fees. It was listed as an "information only/discussion" item since a board member had requested data on this item at a previous meeting.
     At this point, there was no longer any concern that we needed money from fees to prevent a tax increase. There was only the concern that "everyone should pay for their own child's education." After vigorous dissent from Dennis Doris and me, the BOE voted four-to-two to change the discussion item to an action item and then to initiate fees in the amount of $25 for elementary children, $35 for middle school and $45 for high school. The following are my reasons for opposing those actions:
     #1 — There was no opportunity for the community to be heard or testify, since it was listed as an information item. Local attorney Linda Eckelman appeared and spoke against such actions, but more might have if the public had been aware that action was imminent.
     #2 — We expressed concern for raising taxes in the amount of $29 for a family with a $100,000 home, but no similar concern for raising a fee of $50 for a family with two elementary children (regardless of the size of their home).
     #3 — Our district has a high percentage of children who qualify for free or reduced lunches. We sued the state to make sure we get adequate funding to educate these children (and make no mistake about it — USD 443 does a good job of that! We can and do prove it with our achievement scores)  It makes no sense to now introduce fees to charge these same kids for their enrollment.
     #4 — When fees were in place here in the 90s, the district had so much trouble collecting them that they only received about 60 percent of the fees assessed. There's no law governing such fees. The state constitution requires the state to provide education for our children.
    Nevertheless, the district then hired a collection agency to try to bring in the unpaid fees. Isn't that a rather foolish use of education funds?
     #5 — Finally, as an elementary school counselor in this district for 18 years, I was in and out of many homes. I know that there are people who drink, smoke, do drugs, are lazy and try to beat the system.  But, I also know there are more people who are honest and decent, who struggle to make ends meet and who work hard to try to provide for their children. I don't believe in punishing them for the wrongs of others.
    I have seen the results when good kids grow up and become contributing members of our society. I think it's worth the price!

Ethel Peterson
Dodge City