Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plainfield SD 202 board votes down proposed technology fee after equity concerns
Summary
The Plainfield SD 202 Board of Education declined to approve a package of updated student fees on Jan. 22, 2025, after board members raised concerns that a proposed $50 high‑school “technology” fee would create mandatory costs for courses required for promotion or graduation.
The Plainfield SD 202 Board of Education voted down a motion to approve updated student fees — including a proposed $50 technology fee for high‑school students — during its Jan. 22, 2025, meeting.
Dr. Josh Ruhlin, a board member, led a lengthy critique of the fee proposal, saying the district’s K–12 technology requirement effectively makes the $50 charge mandatory for required courses and raising concerns about the burden on families who do not qualify for fee waivers. "If I, as a 5th grader, 6th grader, 7th grader, have to attend these courses in order to go on to the next grade level and I can't do so without having this resource, then that resource needs to be provided to you," Ruhlin said during the meeting.
Ruhlin drew a series of cost examples from the proposed schedule to illustrate the cumulative impact on families. He cited that a typical 7th‑grader’s required fees (registration plus the district technology charge) would total $220; a 10th‑grader could face $565 when registration, the tech fee and driver’s‑education fees are included; and that a minimum set of required charges for some students could reach $1,100. Ruhlin also noted additional optional costs — athletics, AP exams and course fees — could raise total family outlays further.
The board conducted a roll call vote after discussion. The motion to approve the fees failed 1–4; recorded votes were Doctor Baxter: yes; Miss Seiden: no; Dr. Josh Ruhlin: no; Miss Morales: no; Mr. Westfall: no. The meeting transcript did not identify who originally moved the motion, so the mover and seconder are listed as not specified in the official vote record.
Board members debating the motion distinguished between fees for optional, extracurricular items and fees tied to courses required for promotion or graduation. Several members asked staff to revisit the schedule and return with alternatives, and the board directed the committee process to continue work on fee structure and fee‑waiver thresholds.
The board did not adopt the proposed fee schedule and left the proposal to be reconsidered at a later meeting.
Less urgent administrative details from the meeting — including multiple consent items and personnel approvals — proceeded separately.
