Support equity with your school budget

www.acsa.org

Fees can be a barrier for students to participate in activities

October 14, 2024

The following article was written by Tracey Runeare, principal at Los Altos High School.

Equitable outcomes in schools are only possible if all students participate in program offerings. One unintentional barrier that prevent students, particularly those from low-income backgrounds, from fully participating in what our schools offer is student fees. Changes to district and school budgets are an immediate and tangible way for instructional leaders to address inequitable outcomes that arise from charging fees to students.

I recently conducted a qualitative research study of 10 high school principals to determine how budget decisions are made related to student fees. I found that principals do not make budget decisions lightly; however, it is time to make the connection between instructional leadership and student fees that prevent inclusion in educational programs.

When schools charge for the costs of curricular, co-curricular, and extracurricular programs, low-income students are at a disadvantage since they are less likely to afford participation. Given the intersection between poverty, race, English proficiency and geography, and the statistical evidence showing that students living in poverty are more likely to be African American and Hispanic than white, the impact of student fees on low-income students is a social justice issue in education. The positive impacts of students’ participation in extracurricular activities are well known. School leaders who expect donations or fees may be unintentionally supporting a system that stops students from accessing programs before they can even begin. Providing an educational experience that ensures inclusion for low-income students is of utmost importance to equity in schools and should be addressed with urgency.

Students of color are already underrepresented in advanced courses in schools, and test fees for Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) courses create barriers for low-income students’ access to these advanced courses. The inequitable outcomes that result from this underrepresentation are striking when one considers high school students who do earn qualifying AP or IB scores may also earn college credit in those subject areas. Students who take and pass AP and IB exams may earn up to a semester’s worth of college credit, saving thousands of dollars at university while only paying approximately $400 for those high school exams. Those same students have higher college retention rates and are statistically more likely to complete their bachelor’s degree within four years when they enter college.

High school athletics are also likely to have fees or require a donation from students. Given the importance and emphasis on extracurricular involvement related to student performance and belonging, schools should cover the cost to participate in athletics. Principals often use athletics participation data as information about student inclusion and equity in the school; yet fees that can lower participation rates are quite common.

National surveys have shown low-income students and families may not participate in school sports due to costs. California Education Code 49012 states, “A fee waiver policy shall not make a pupil fee permissible.” It was clear from my study that there is a relationship between decisions to charge fees and availability of fee reduction and waivers. The process of the fee waiver itself is a problematic barrier to students. The premise that a needy student would report their financial status to a trusted adult or request financial assistance is simply false. The erroneous peace of mind provided to administrators through the availability of a fee waiver creates a double barrier to students.

Regarding the elements of equity (i.e., social, environmental, racial, gender, accessibility), district and school economic inequities are glaring because these inequities begin with statewide school funding disparities based on neighborhoods. Almost without exception, wealthier neighborhoods have better funded schools that receive more money based on property tax value, and poorer neighborhoods have lower funded schools that receive state tax money. Districts and principals must transform the economic systems in schools to disrupt inequitable systems that impact students outside of schools. The following are recommendations for school and district leaders, including superintendents and high school principals.

1. Conduct a budget equity audit A recommendation for school principals and district leaders (e.g., chief business officer or superintendent) is to conduct a program and budget equity audit. This should not be confused with current attempts at budget equity as intended by state supplemental funding, such as Title 1 funds to support low-income students. An internal program and budget equity audit allows schools to assess and identify student fees. The second stage of the equity audit reallocates the budget to support existing programs. The result is a budget that provides for program costs instead of passing those on to students.

2. Provide budget training for principals School districts should provide budget training for principals. The training should include current California Education Code policy and district guidance on how the budget can be used to create equity. The legal and equity implications of student fees for any educational programs should be discussed and evaluated through the training.

Professional learning on budget combined with social justice education and instructional leadership can result in budget practices that remove student fees. Education Week reported 34 percent of all school districts nationally include equity, diversity and inclusion in their mission statements. Budgets are an essential tool to create equity in schools. Training for principals must include more than financial bottom lines if schools and districts are to ensure inclusion of all students in every part of the education program.

3. Centralize the cost of athletics High school educational programs include sports, which are found to have a positive impact on student achievement, inclusion and sense of belonging. Athletic costs should be centralized at the district level. Centralization overall is not a solution to equity in schools and reverting to entirely centralizing budget is not recommended. However, centralization of athletics fees is a short-term solution that removes expected donations and fees until budget equity audits and training that incorporates social justice praxis is implemented. My study showed schools that did not have centralized funding for athletics expected donations or had fees in place for students who participated in the program. Centralizing all athletic costs would help principals ensure there are no “pay to play” fees to eliminate any real or perceived financial barrier for student participation.

Ultimately, district budgets should include all required elements of athletics participation so schools do not have to use their limited discretionary funds or ask for donations. To start, costs of athletics programs might be centralized in stages, with district payment for league dues and officials, then increase each year. Longer term, district superintendents and principals should advocate at the state level that money be specifically designated for athletics programs. Free public education, which is understood more broadly than curricular programs, could be more inclusive of extracurriculars and provide opportunities for students to feel more connected to school, resulting in higher academic performance.

4. Centralize costs for AP/IB tests Finally, districts should centralize costs of AP/IB tests for students, regardless of their socioeconomic status. One of the state’s accountability measures for schools is the number of students who are prepared for college. According to the California School Dashboard metrics, college-ready students are those who receive a score of 3 or higher on two AP exams or students who receive a score of 4 or higher on two IB exams.

The state expects students’ demographics on the college readiness measure to reflect the schools’ demographic student population. Elimination of fees removes one variable for inequities in enrollment in AP/IB educational programs and academic achievement of low-income students and students of color. Test fee waivers/reduction processes are, again, problematic because the burden of a request for financial assistance is placed on students.

If administrators are to disrupt inequities that exist outside the school system from the inside, districts and schools must take on this financial barrier to participation. Centralizing the costs of AP/IB exams would be an act of transformative leadership by districts and principals and would increase inclusion for all.

Educational budget practices that require fees are maintaining larger social inequities and may in fact contribute to those gaps. By removing financial barriers such as expected donations and fees, educators open access to educational opportunities for all students. Instructional leaders are professionally and morally obligated to address achievement gaps based on students’ socioeconomic status and ethnicity/race in schools. In this way, they can take concrete action to remove financial barriers in our school budgets, break the cycle of systemic inequalities, and embody social justice and equity practices in our public high schools.

Tracey Runeare is principal at Los Altos High School (Mountain View Los Altos Union HSD) in her 15th year as public high school administrator.

Dissertation citation Runeare, T. (2024). Principals’ Budget Decision Making and Student Equity. [Doctoral Dissertation, San Francisco State University]. SFScholarWorks.

References Blomfield, C. J., & Barber, B. (2010). Developmental experiences during extracurricular activities and Australian adolescents’ self-concept: Particularly important for youth from disadvantaged schools. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 582–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9563-0

Bouman, C., & Brown, D. (1996, December). Public school fees as hidden taxation. Educational Administration Quarterly: The Journal of Leadership for Effective and Equitable Organizations, 32(1 suppl), 665–685. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X960321005

California Education Code section 49012. (2012). California legislative information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=49010.&lawCode=EDC

California Legislative Information. (2012). California Education Code 49012. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=49012&lawCode=EDC

California School Dashboard. (2023). College/Career indicator (CCI): Measures of college readiness. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/cm/documents/ccicollege.pdf

Camacho, D. E., & Fuligni, A. J. (2014). Extracurricular participation among adolescents from immigrant families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, (44), 1251–1262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0105-z

Dixson, D. D. (2021). Intersections of culture, context, and race with poverty: Implications for services for gifted learners from low-income backgrounds. In T. Stambaugh & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Unlocking potential: Identifying and serving gifted students from low-income households (pp. 27–46). Routledge.

Eyler, A. A., Piekarz-Porter, E., & Serrano, N. H. (2019, May/June). Pay to play? State laws related to high school sports participation fees. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 25(3), E27–E35. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000813

Ford, D. Y., Wright, B. L., & Trotman Scott, M. (2020). A matter of equity: Desegregating and integrating gifted and talented education for under-represented students of color. Multicultural Perspectives, 22(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2020.1728275

Gilman, R. (2001). The relationship between life satisfaction, social interest, and frequency of extracurricular activities among adolescent students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30(6), 749–767. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012285729701

Grubb, W. N., & Allen, R. (2011). Rethinking school funding, resources, incentives, and outcomes. Journal of Educational Change, 12, 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-010-9146-6

Klugman, J. (2013). The advanced placement arms race and the reproduction of educational inequality. Teachers College Record, 115(5), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811311500506

Pendharkar, E. (2023, April 4). What an analysis of school district mission statements revealed. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-an-analysis-of-school-district-mission-statements-revealed/2023/04

Smith, J., Hurwitz, M., & Avery, C. (2015). Giving college credit where it is due: Advanced placement exam scores and college outcomes (NBER Working Paper No. 21147). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w21147

Solórzano, D. G., & Ornelas, A. (2002). A critical race analysis of advanced placement classes: A case of educational inequality. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(4), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532771xjle0104_2

TheBestSchools.org. (2022, November 8). Which AP classes should you take? https://www.bestcolleges.com/blog/which-ap-classes-should-you-take/

Theokis, C., & Sarees, R. (2013). Shattering expectations: Finding America’s missing AP and IB students. Education Trust. https://edtrust.org/resource/finding-americas-missing-ap-and-ib-students/

Wyatt, J., & Jagesic, S. (2021). High school CLEP test taking, dual enrollment, and college outcomes. College Board. High School CLEP Test Taking and College Outcomes