Seth Rosenblatt

Seth Rosenblatt

Administrators and parents akin have long waited for clarity on what fees schools could and could non charge students. With Governor Brownish signing legislation that settles a lawsuit over public schools charging students for educational activities and materials, that day has come up, right? Retrieve again.

Intended to clarify the law around what fees schoolhouse districts can charge and to rightfully curb abuses where schools accept been illegally exacting fees from students, AB 1575 was the outcome of the ACLU's class activity lawsuit claiming that public schools have been violating the gratis school guarantee in the State Constitution. Without rehashing all of the details of the police force and requirements, I'd like to point out the dilemma and challenge that school boards and districts confront in implementing the law, and posit that the matter is far from settled. The publicity of the ACLU lawsuit prompted many districts, including my ain, to start these discussions almost two years agone and analyze what nosotros were charging students.

Although there is piffling to no dispute well-nigh the imperative that public school must be costless, it doesn't work out that neatly in its existent-life application. Showtime, we must acknowledge, every bit many readers of the EdSource commodity noted, that this trouble is in large part a direct result of the massive underfunding of our public schools in this state. School districts have ever been forced to be "creative" in how they evangelize programs with less money, and in many cases that has involved charging students and families. But the force per unit area to do this has escalated in the last five years. This doesn't condone such deportment, and conspicuously there are some serious abuses (e.grand., forcing students to buy textbooks or humiliating students who don't pay). 2d, we must recognize that in districts that have a community with the ways, individual fundraising supports many schoolhouse activities; this is not charging the students straight, only it is indirect fee collection (even though information technology's through "voluntary" participation).

Despite the supposed clarity in the new law and the guidance given by the State Superintendent, it's still non clear what falls on what side of the line. In our district, for case, we have talked about using at to the lowest degree two criteria to decide the activities for which the district cannot accuse: (a) services/tools/products that are integral to the educational feel of the school, and (b) those where the expense to provide it is required and unavoidable. If an expense meets both of these criteria, information technology'south clear that the district should pay. Textbooks – very clear that the district should pay.  School photos – very clear that the district should be allowed to charge the student a fee.

Merely take items that satisfy criterion (a) but not (b). One such example is summer reading books. It's perfectly reasonable for a school to crave mandatory summer reading for its students (making information technology integral to the educational feel). Only if those books are available for free to borrow from the school library (or the town library), then should the schoolhouse district have to supply those books, as in that location is a free and reasonable alternative? If so, it would logically follow that the district could charge a fee for these books since the pupil/family doesn't take to brand such a buy to fulfill the educational requirement. What if schoolwork requires doing enquiry after schoolhouse on the Internet, and many families don't have a figurer or Internet access at domicile? Should the school be required to provide that alternative (or even pay for their Internet access at home)? One can easily see where these grayness areas come up quickly.

Then there is the fundamental question of what is integral to the curriculum. Our middle schools accept an instrumental music plan. It's one of the electives, so students aren't forced to accept information technology, although many do. The district pays for the music instructor, merely what near the instruments? How is a musical instrument conceptually any different from a textbook (because if a student took a different elective, he/she would surely be supplied with the appropriate textbook if one existed)?  But the toll of instruments is so prohibitive that many districts might choose to but not offer the program at all, which would be unfortunate.

What nigh uniforms for school sports? What well-nigh other after-school "enrichment" programs for which many districts are now charging? Looked at from 1 angle, these are "afterwards-school" activities that can't exist office of the standard curriculum, or they'd take place during the regular schoolhouse day, no? Merely these are all programs that school districts should be providing (and would be if they had the funding), then why are they any dissimilar from classes offered during the school twenty-four hour period? I suspect many schoolhouse districts volition be forced to thread the needle in defining what each program is and how it fits within the curriculum to endeavour to abide by the law.

There are lots of other examples where perspectives will differ – and inevitably pb to disputes – whether it be transportation, clubs, or even whether the lowly pencil is a required fabric. And what nearly the growing number of districts asking every student to bring their own device (e.yard., tablet, phone) equally a primary tool for schoolhouse? And despite this new constabulary, our financial realities haven't changed (and will go worse if both Propositions 30 and 38 fail), so it is naïve to believe that many districts won't exist forced by financial circumstance to ignore the law. I don't disregard information technology, only it is rational to believe they will wait to get sued first because they have no other choice in the short term.

I'm not writing this to debate which fees can be charged and which can't (or which should and shouldn't), only rather to state that despite the new police force and particularly in the absence of proper funding, the issue will likely stay very foggy and confusing for boards, districts, and parents. Notwithstanding the assertions of clarity, ultimately many of these specific employ cases may exist decided by the courts in response to future lawsuits. Nonetheless, if AB 1575 just stops the most blatant abuses, then it will take accomplished something. Like virtually other public school advocates, I dream of the day when schools take enough funding to make this consequence moot, but today that is nonetheless just a dream.

Seth Rosenblatt is the president of the Governing Lath of the San Carlos School District, currently in his second term. He also serves as the president of the San Mateo County Schoolhouse Boards Association and sits on the Executive Committee of the Articulation Venture Silicon Valley Sustainable Schools Job Strength. He has two children in San Carlos public schools. He writes oft on problems in public education, in regional and national publications as well as on his own blog. Seth has more than 20 years of experience in media and technology, including executive positions in both commencement-up companies and large enterprises. He currently operates his own consulting house for technology companies focused on strategy, marketing, and business concern development. Seth holds a B.A. in Economics from Dartmouth College and an Thousand.B.A. from Harvard Business organization Schoolhouse.

To get more reports similar this one, click here to sign up for EdSource's no-price daily email on latest developments in didactics.