Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Public Records | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

How fair is 'Fair Share'?

March 5, 2013

I’m glad to know that the ISD 88 formula for cooperative athletics (generally Cathedral and MVL students playing on NUHS teams), called a “Fair Share” agreement, is getting some additional press and......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(16)

HarryTheHenderson

Mar-05-13 4:01 AM

Well written letter. I see your point on being a tax payer and paying into the public school. But the public school is also required to buy the books to teach the students at your private school, public schools are also funding many other things at private schools that are required by state law... didn't see that in your letter. I would argue that if you want your child to play tennis then a simple transfer to NUHS is in line. If you want the private school setting then you have to deal with either not playing tennis or paying an extra fee to play on the NUHS team. Maybe a booster club is the way to go, that way very little taxes are spent on sports.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Fischer

Mar-05-13 5:41 AM

Private school parents pay between $3,ooo and $7,ooo per child per year for tuition for an alternate education. the public school does not receive the federal dollars for that child. I agree with The first post, Your tax dollars are being used for your child thru textbooks, transportation,the councilor at your school, etc. I donate to our church, which pays half the tuition at NUACS and yet my child can't go to class there unless I pay tuition. more taxes, more fees seems to be the norm and we need to get used to it.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Fischer

Mar-05-13 5:42 AM

Private school parents pay between $3,ooo and $7,ooo per child per year for tuition for an alternate education. the public school does not receive the federal dollars for that child. I agree with The first post, Your tax dollars are being used for your child thru textbooks, transportation,the councilor at your school, etc. I donate to our church, which pays half the tuition at NUACS and yet my child can't go to class there unless I pay tuition. more taxes, more fees seems to be the norm and we need to get used to it.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ring2003

Mar-05-13 7:25 AM

It is also worthy to note that NOT paying fair share was unique to New Ulm. Check with other districts- Mankato for instance. Private school students pay extra because no money from the state is received by public schools for these students and that is the norm in other districts. You pay taxes, sure, but your tax dollars are not going to the school if your student is not enrolled there. And the last thing the referendum money should be used for is subsidizing non-public school students in an optional sports activity if that is the tax money you are referring to. Why in the world should the district pick up an extra cost for your student when it was your choice to not enroll there? YOUR choice.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

careaboutsnivelrights

Mar-05-13 9:08 AM

So who in the*****gets my federal dollars if my kids went to NUACS? It sure isnt NUACS, it would seem to me if that is the case then I am saving YOU money by sending my kids to NUACS. If you want to split some hairs RING RING RING DING, then what about the folks who dont have kids using any textbooks or busing where does their share of ISD 88 taxes go to??? And by the way, Religious instruction materials such as text books are not paid by the state. Because you send your children to ISD 88 how does that somehow give you the right to claim the tax dollars as yours? and yours alone? I pay the same rate to ISD 88 as you, but my children never spent a day in the classroom there, kind of sound like me and all 600 some kids from NUACS are saving you a pile of money. Ive said it before close the private schools in this town and then watch your taxes go up as those kids would need to be housed and educated somewhere.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Mar-05-13 9:26 AM

The administrative costs the public school pays for activities are nearly all fixed. The district will pay them whether or not non-public students participate. In the end the district is only shooting themselves in the foot. Non-public students will be forced to drop out of coop sports and the activity fees now being paid by them will go away.

If the district is losing money by covering the cost of administering these fees the only "fair" thing to do is raise the activity fees of all participants. The other thing the district should do is pay the coaches on a per participant basis instead of a flat salary. A coach with 50 kids signed up would be paid more than one with 10. Pretty straight forward and would trim the fixed costs.

Sports used to be a good way to bring people with different backgrounds together in this community. Thanks to district 88 this will no longer be the case.

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ring2003

Mar-05-13 9:35 AM

Snivel- you aren't paying attention and clearly don't understand school funding at all. The district doesn't get tax money (federal or state) from you or anyone else for parochial kids if they are not enrolled in the district. Your local tax money from the referendum goes to pay for the education of the children in your community and you benefit from this whether your children attend public school or not. You don't have to physically use a text book or ride on a bus to benefit from a strong school system in your community. To say so is short sighted. If a parent decides to opt for an alternative education, so be it. That choice comes with extra cost to them and less tax dollars going to the district. The option of free public education and the programs that go with it is always there. The referendum money was never intended to subsidize sports fees for non-district students. The priorities would be class size reduction and not making further cuts to existing programs.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ring2003

Mar-05-13 9:44 AM

Jreader- Just to clarify, public students do pay fees to participate. Are you saying they should pay the SAME fees as parochial kids even though state/federal funding is not received for these students? That doesn't seem fair to the district at all.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

careaboutsnivelrights

Mar-05-13 10:06 AM

So Ring, when my tax statement says Dist 88 and then an amount, and then it says Voter approved Levy's and then an amount which I pay, you are saying that money does not go to Dist 88 correct?

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

yunosmart

Mar-05-13 12:58 PM

The reason they pay more is because the rich folk who send their kids to private schools can afford it. I'm guessing that's the logic behind it anyway.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TURBO75

Mar-05-13 1:15 PM

Mr. Koelpin's argument should be directed towards MVL, not Dist. 88. Why doesn't the co-op school, in this case MVL, split the cost among ALL of it's students, it would add a small amount to the tuition. It is also wrong to say that public school parents do not pay anything over the initial participation fee, I'm sure they are asked to volunteer at event's, join the school's booster clubs and participate in fundraising. Private school is a choice you make, Dist. 88 will not tell you how to run your school, you need to return the favor.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ring2003

Mar-05-13 7:05 PM

Snivel! I said this in the last post and I'll say it again. You really are not paying attention. Read my post again- slower this time. Yes, your LOCAL tax dollars for the referendum go to district 88. NO, they are not to be used for supplementing activity fees for non-students. The main funding for schools is from the state and is based on a per-pupil basis of the students enrolled in District 88. If a student is not enrolled, the district receives no money for them. That is where the fair share comes in. The money that is not received for these parochial students has to come from somewhere. The district shouldn't be responsible for it.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Integrity

Mar-05-13 8:45 PM

Ring: COOP Fee issue aside. You have stated your knowledge and many of us' lack-there-of about school district funding. So, now that you're elected, put your knowledge where it belongs-making the HARD BUDGET DECISIONS that may hurt people's feelings, or upset the norm, etc to get the budget back on track. Charging a few extra COOP Activity Fees aren't going to do it. You've told us time and again in this forum how you know the ins-and-outs of school budgets-then we expect to see results. And not just another referendum.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Mar-06-13 8:29 AM

Ring,

Activities should be self funding. Kids should pay to play whether they are public or private students. Funding sources for education be it be from the state or from local taxes would be moot.

It has yet to be demonstrated that under the current system non-public student participation has increased the administrative costs for district 88. If this were true then the district's costs would decrease when fewer non-public students participated. This has not been the case.

The "Fair Share" scheme currently imposed by the district will end coop sports. It in no way will bring in extra revenue. They've cut off their nose to spite their face.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RHWONU

Mar-06-13 10:34 AM

yunosmart- "the rich folk who send their kids to private schools can afford it." Not all are "rich folk". Most are parents who see their children's education as a priority and do without many material things to that they can afford to send their children to the school of their choice. Please do not stereotype the parents/families that send their children to a private school as "rich folk".

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Mar-07-13 1:31 AM

Not all the private schools are expensive. St. Paul's is still under $900 per year or less. (2nd and 3rd students in a family get further discounts with the 4th child being free). Plus, there is tuition assistance, so to say that "because the rich folk who send their kids to private schools can afford it" isn't a fair statement.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 16 of 16 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web