Guest |
Posted: Tue, Apr 6 2010, 6:28 pm EDT Post subject: Re: school programs |
|
Hasn't this been covered a few times already in these posts?
1. The entire sports program is $100K a year. They needed to cut about $1.2M. It was a minor factor.
2. What your proposing of parents paying and those that can't pay being subsidized is effectively what is already happening by leaving it in the budget. What's the point of trying to complicate things by hoping that some volunteer parent will work up some collection fund for the kids who can't afford to pay? Have you ever tried coordinating just getting a teacher or a coach a gift from parents collective contributions? It would be a mess to work out an informal subsidy system -- how is elegibility determined, what happens if parents pledge but don't pay, etc. All to spend the same amount of money outside the budget than within it and still end up not making a dent in the overall budget process.
And toward what end? They've already worked out a compromise budget. And if your beef is with the $3 increase, this wouldn't make a dent. |
|
mrfunone |
Posted: Tue, Apr 6 2010, 3:30 pm EDT Post subject: school programs |
|
If you want to save the school some money, why not have parents whose kids play a sport pay for their kids to play that sport?
I know that it sounds Un-American, or some other silly euphemism, but, I pay for my kids to play sports and other after school activities.
What makes those other people so special?
Is it because they are the same muckity-mucks who are on school boards and who are PTO officials so they make the rules for the rest of us?
If you wanna play, ya gotta pay.
I'm sure parents who can't afford it can get a subsidy of some kind.
The WHOLE, ENTIRE school system is based on subsidies.
Those who have more expensive homes, usually pay more taxes.
So, the idea is not really all that new.
Most folks in this town could afford it I'm sure.
The same could apply for ALL after-school activities, not just sports. |
|