To the Editor:
The Princeton Public Schools district’s decision to impose $100 to $150 per student activity fees is an unfair and inequitable fix for a $200,000 budget shortfall. The move disproportionately burdens low- and moderate-income families.
The district markets these fees as a reasonable charge for a gateway to opportunity, but this is a false promise. Students who had limited access to extracurriculars before, without this additional cost, will not suddenly gain it because a fee is now attached. Invisible barriers remain and are amplified: demanding course requirements, inflexible schedules, hidden costs, and other structural obstacles that keep many students from joining clubs and teams.
This revenue solution was imported from the School District of the Chathams, where Superintendent Michael LaSusa previously worked. But Princeton is not Chatham. While both are affluent New Jersey districts, Princeton is far more socioeconomically diverse. State data shows that 32 percent of Princeton’s households are low- to moderate-income with earnings under $100,000; Chatham’s falls well below 10 percent. Princeton’s larger immigrant population and municipal affordable housing programs make this a community where a $150 fee impacts families very differently.
Automatic waivers for students on free and reduced lunch does not fully resolve this problem. Claiming fees can be waived by administrators “upon request” ignores a basic concerns about dignity, classism, and racism whether real or perceived and has never been documented as impactful. Forcing families to “beg” for relief is humiliating and inevitably means some eligible students will stay silent rather than apply.
It is disingenuous to call this anything other than a tax (or additional attendance fee for sporting events) on parents — whether they are already taxpayers or families struggling to support their children’s participation. Extracurricular activities are not luxuries. They are essential extensions of the classroom, developing skills that traditional instruction often misses and playing a critical role in college admissions. Charging for them undermines the very equity Princeton Public Schools claim to value.
The manner of implementation was equally troubling. The decision was buried in the budget, avoiding public comment or an individual Board vote. It is a maneuver designed to suppress debate, not encourage it.
If the administration wishes to close a budget gap, it should start with genuine fiscal analysis rather than a convenient money grab. Has there been an honest effort or study to eliminate courses with low enrollment or costly international trips instead. There has not been an honest accounting of how these fees force lower-income families to subsidize rising labor costs, expanding special education enrollment, charter school tuition obligations, and healthcare inflation. Nor are there mechanisms in place to measure the impact of this decision on students.
Princeton prides itself on its values. This policy betrays them.