Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Activities Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Activities director proposes shifting costs for rare non‑host co‑ops; board raises equity concerns
Summary
Activities Director Jake Henderson proposed the district shift to a model where families cover 60% of the cost for very low‑participation “non‑host” co‑ops (e.g., one‑off hockey or gymnastics). Board members praised the goal of expanding opportunities but pressed for more data and warned the change could create inequities; the board will revisit the proposal on March 24.
At the March 10 meeting of the Columbia Heights Public Schools Board of Education, Activities Director Jake Henderson presented a proposal to change how the district funds non‑host Minnesota State High School League co‑ops — activities where a Columbia Heights student participates on another school’s team because the home district does not host that sport.
Henderson said the district currently charges families the regular activity fee while the activities fund covers the remainder; for very low‑participation non‑host co‑ops (he estimated about five or fewer participants) the district often bears the bulk of substantial host costs, including transportation, facility fees or ice rental. Henderson proposed shifting those one‑off costs so families would pay roughly 60% of the total participation fee, with the district covering the balance and continuing to allow families to fundraise or seek scholarships to reduce the burden. “I would propose … the family shares in that financial fee of paying 60% of that participant fee,” Henderson said during his presentation.
Board members pressed for specifics about how the district would compute costs and how the model compares to neighboring districts. One committee member asked for a breakdown of what host districts charge and whether Columbia Heights would cap the number of programs covered under the new model. Henderson replied that his office has surveyed nearby districts and that fees vary; he said the 60% figure is intended for rare, one‑off situations and that the district would plan and set the amount the prior year so families could fundraise.
Several board members voiced concern that moving from the current activity fee to a 60% share could create an inequitable system that favors families with means. A committee member summarized the concern this way: “I have some discomfort with a model that would essentially allow families who have the means to pay to dictate what activities are available to their kid.” Board members asked the administration to return on March 24 with comparative fee data from host districts, clearer cost calculations, and details about fundraising and scholarship options.
Henderson emphasized that the proposal targets rare, non‑host co‑ops (examples listed included boys hockey, girls gymnastics and golf) and that as participation increases the per‑student cost would decline; the district could then consider hosting if enough students participate. He recommended the board approve the funding model on March 24 to make planning possible for the following school year, but emphasized the district would continue to pursue grants and booster support to reduce out‑of‑pocket family costs.
The board did not vote on the item at the March 10 meeting; the proposal is expected to return to the March 24 agenda for a decision.
