Fee Levy Angers School Parents

Hon Roy Bodden

by Brian Buckley and Alan Markoff

Thursday, July 15, 2004

Several parents of students of Cayman Prep & High School have expressed outrage that their refusal to pay the $1,200 building assessment levied by the school’s board in January has left them without their children’s end-of-the-year reports.

Earlier this year, the school broke ground at its Smith Road site for a new two-storey building that will help to consolidate the primary school facilities.

Scheduled for completion this September, the building will eventually house a modern computer lab, a science lab, an art room and additional facilities for music. According to the school, Phase 1 of the project will cost around US$1.5 million.

In January, the school implemented a capital assessment fee of $1,200 per family, payable in equal increments over six terms. There are three terms per school year, so parents had to pay an additional $400 per family for the two terms remaining in the 2003/04 school year, on top of the standard fees.

When some of the parents did not pay the capital assessment, the school refused to release end-of-the-year reports, and it also said in its newsletter that it would withhold other official school documents such as transcripts and references until the building fee was paid.

In a letter to Cayman Net News one irate parent, who wished to remain anonymous, wrote: “The school is blackmailing the parents because they have not paid the building fund. The building fund committee could not raise money to expand the school, so it slapped the fund on the parents. Many of these parents did not want the expansion, which will not benefit the present enrolment, but will result in the intake of more students.”

Bud Johnson, the Chairman of the School Board at Cayman Prep & High School and a local businessman, understood the complaints of disgruntled parents, though he stood by the school’s actions and goals.

“The whole issue of withholding reports from parents who owe the school money has been part of our school policy for years and is part of the package we send out every summer to parents,” he said.

Mr Johnson, along with the Principal Jean Bahadur and Treasurer Jane Panton, reiterated that this was not a January surprise, as some parents have claimed, but that the building fee had been presented at parent meetings last September and October.

“We decided to go with the one-time, two-year total fee of $1,200, rather than increasing the cost of tuition permanently. We thought this was the fairest and best route to go,” Mr Johnson said.

For the upset parents of students in the high school who feel that their children will not benefit from the Primary School expansion, Mr Johnson feels that those parents and their children have benefited from previous capital development projects for which former parents have paid.

“We as a school board may be guilty of poor communication, but the board remains firm that it had to increase the critical mass of students in order to preserve the quality of education we aim to provide,” Mr Johnson said.

The school gave its rationale for the Building Fund Assessment, in a letter to student’s parents, saying that the capital assessment was made for a number of reasons.

The letter noted that Prep was a non-profit mission of the United Church, and that while the Church and all its entities supported capital projects, it expected the school to contribute as well.

The school also said that because it had received “financial support via the recently introduced capital assessment”, it was now in a position to approach the corporate sector for financial support. “It would have been unreasonable for us to seek donations for this project unless parents were willing to contribute in a significant manner,” the school’s letter said.

The Minister of Education, the Hon Roy Bodden, met with school officials on Monday to discuss the matter. “I was approached by several people, both in person and by telephone about the matter,” he said “I have no authority to get involved in the concerns of a private school, but I advised them as to what I thought they should do, although my advice was entirely optional, and I made sure they understood that.”

Mr Bodden did not think there were any provisions under the law that would allow schools to withhold student’s reports for unpaid fees such as the building assessment.

Regardless, Mr Bodden thinks that an amicable settlement to the problem can be reached. “I am confident, having had my meeting with them, that they will arrive at a decision that parents will be able to live with.”

Back...

Click here for reader comments...