As I perused the usual school forms for my daughter’s eighth-grade year I was thunderstruck by a new policy being instituted that requires a $50 fee (modified to $30 for reduced lunch rate families) for “added insurance protection” on the laptop my daughter is issued as part of her educational experience.

It is stated that whether or not I agree to submit a $50 non-refundable fee, I will be liable for any damages if they should occur during the school year whether or not those damages occur as the result of negligence on my daughter’s part.

It is stated that by not participating in the insurance program I am liable for damages, which are not covered by the normal warranty. As I see it, because of this caveat, my daughter will not be able to use the tool that much of the curriculum has been built around because I am unwilling to accept the parameters of this new policy on sound principle.

As stated in the letter, “the laptop has become an integral part of our instruction…” Spot on, that was why Maine made the decision six years ago; to level the playing field for all students, to offer technology to kids whose families did not have access to technology.

Now that we have so successfully integrated the laptop program into our curriculum and hooked students and teachers on the tool, which I might add is a marvelous one, the expectation is that individual families will now have to assume the responsibly for “any damage that is the result of negligence, misuse or loss.” Fair enough if my child intentionally vandalizes anything. What about accidentally dropping it if she trips?

I am very disturbed that the elephant plodding about the room was never introduced to me, only a $50 insurance bill was. Was this an executive decision? When was it made? I am writing this as a parent, a teacher who wholeheartedly supports the laptop program, a taxpayer, and as the self-anointed mouthpiece for the families that by circumstance or choice are without technology.

I have intentionally put this topic out in a public forum because as far as I know, no one else has. To quietly pursue the answers to my individual questions would not serve the community. I think we as a community of concerned citizens need public clarification and participation community wide and statewide.

Karen Hand Ogg

Windham