Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Interesting Question...

Palmer School Committee defends $100 parking fee at high school
PALMER - Michael F. Borkowski told the School Committee he is unhappy with the new $100 parking fee that students have to pay at Palmer High School. "There are children who can't afford it. I can't afford it. ... It's not right," Borkowski, a parent, said at Wednesday's committee meeting.

Borkowski also took the opportunity to ask the committee where the funds from the fees are going. He also suggested having one assistant principal for all three schools, instead of three, to save money.

There's actually several questions that follow these types of stories, at least in my mind. The first question I have is this: If a student is paying to park at the school, does it then afford them some measure of protection against having their personal vehicle searched by school officials? Since they are compensating the school for the privilege of parking on school property, shouldn't that garner them the same legal protection as someone parking at, say, the local transit authority?

The next question is a harder one. Are the schools overplaying their hand with these types of fees? There's simply no logistical reason for this fee - it's not like a sports fee, where a teacher/coach has to be available to assist the students, nor a special field or court that need be maintained. It's a parking lot. They have to patch/resurface it every few years regardless of students driving, so it's not like it costs the school system anything to allow students to park. Assessing a "fee" to park is pure revenue generation - and it upsets parents and makes them start questioning why the school system is so top-heavy, administration-wise...

I think it's BS to charge kids to park (and not just because I'll be shelling out a few bills for TheBoy in a few years, either). It continues a dangerous precedent - seeing the students as a seemingly endless well of potential revenue - while offering nothing of value in return. It's not outside the realm of possibility to see this paving the way (ha! parking lot puns!) for "Bathroom Usage Fee" and "Chalk Dust Removal Fee" - every time the school faces a revenue shortfall, they simply introduce a new fee that the students have to pay.

How does this fee work in towns (like mine) that charge families that live closer than a certain distance to use the bus? We'll face that in just three years, when TheBoy goes off to Middle School. We live within the "magic circle" where we'd have to pay for bus usage, yet having him walk a mile and a half to and from school every day isn't an option - not when he has to cross a state highway with no crossing lights. Not at 12 years old. We'll pay for him to ride the bus, then we'll pay for him to park at the school?

It's an idea that should be kicked to the curb.

That is all.

9 comments:

steveG said...

I agree with everything you said and don't think the school should charge for parking ... However, I don't think the children can't afford it argument doesn't work either. They can't afford the parking yet they can afford the car, gas, and insurance? To me, this is not the argument they should be making if they do want it overturned ..

Mike W. said...

If a student is paying to park at the school, does it then afford them some measure of protection against having their personal vehicle searched by school officials?

Unfortunately that won't fly. I had to pay to park in the school lot in high school (though I think it was $20-$30 or so) Cars got searched all the time.

IIRC they started charging a fee because they were planning on expanding the parking lot.

Reputo said...

I disagree with some points. So let me explain some logic:

1) The public schools are designed (in principle)to provide an education (preferably in reading, writing, arithmatic, and science) to their students within their district. Any tax dollars collected should go towards those goals.

2) Bathroom usage and chalk dust removal (or whiteboard cleaner) are an integral part of the education process. If a school could provide a way for students not to have to use the restroom (sorry diapers don't count) over the course of an 8 hour day, then I might (that's a big MIGHT) be able to see charging a fee for it. Otherwise, it is paid for with taxpayer funds.

3)Parking for vehicles is not an integral part of the education process. While I don't oppose a blanket fee for all students to park, I think there are much better ways to arrange the fee. If buses reach the majority of students, then a fee could be charged for students who could be served by buses but choose not to. If the parking area for the school is limited, charging (or better yet auctioning off) parking spaces will naturally limit the parking places.

As for your situation, I don't understand how a school district could charge for living a mile and a half away from school. I went to school inside a decent sized city (200,000+) and the buses traveled at least for a 5 mile radius from the school.

Now, as to your point about schools being top-heavy, I agree completely. Many of them are teacher heavy as well. You don't need a 10:1 student-faculty ratio to have effective learning. Then again, my wife and I home school our kids so we usually get pissed off at whatever the local school district is doing to waste our tax money.

wolfwalker said...

I think it's BS to charge kids to park (and not just because I'll be shelling out a few bills for TheBoy in a few years, either).

Why are you going to let him drive to school? What's wrong with the bus?

zeeke42 said...

Charging money for a limited resource is a great way to allocate it.

Charging a bus fee would irritate me a lot more. If you want the privilege of driving, paying for it is reasonable.

Also, the can't afford it comments are pretty silly. How much does it cost to insure a brand new 16 year old driver in MA? $100 is nothing by comparison.

Anonymous said...

When I was in High School, there was a parking fee in place. Too many cars, not enough spaces, so they let the market take care of it.

bluesun said...

In college I've got fees for anything you can think of--for things that I never use. Why do I have to support the football program when I haven't ever gone to a game?

In high school I think I paid $50 once for a sticker to go in the window of my car, and that sticker lasted me and my brother for 6 years.

Maureen said...

In my high school there was no parking, period. If we wanted to drive we had to park in the town lot (conveiently located directly behind the school) and feed the meter!! I don't even recall if teachers had a parking lot, though I think they could park in the lot for the elementary school next door.

bogie said...

There are a couple of costs associated with parking lots - and all the tax payers are paying those costs unless those that actually use the parking lot are charged.

There is maintenance (it costs a lot more than you think to just repave every couple of years. That property is off the tax rolls, and there is probably some sort of insurance needed.

I, as a taxpayer who has no kids (and never will) don't see why I should pay all those costs. Sure, it's only a couple of cents per thousand, but that adds up.

Pay as you go seems to be good to me.

I've got to agree that 1.5 miles from school is a bit much to charge for the bus. But 1 mile is fine; after all, I had to walk 1 mile to school, up hill - both ways, and there were no snow or ice days :)