I don’t think I have any kids, but I was talking with a local bar keep the other day about her kids and high school sports. She claims that while her daughter plays summer league softball, if she wanted to play for the [public] high school team, it would cost about $500.
What!?
When I was in high school 12 years ago, you had to buy your own shoes, and get a physical ($15) but that was it. I lived in a very, very small town with a pretty rich school system though. The bar maid was talking about a medium sized town in Colorado, for what it’s worth.
So, is it normal for high schoolers to have to pay their own way in sports these days? Do any high schools make money on sports? I’m guessing a few guys basketball and a very few football programs have a snowball’s chance of breaking even.
I’m not saying it’s bad policy to make the participants foot the bill, but I am surprised. I didn’t know it worked that way.
My kids did not pay sports but I hear about them having to pay more and more.
From my understanding it has do with the school tax levies not being passed. They ask for more money from the community, the community votes it down and they are left with no money for the sports equipment.
It is not just sports though. I think all the clubs and the bands are facing then same type of thing. Pay to play.
In some areas in Ohio it has gotten so bad they can not afford transportation. That means any child, regardless of age, has to walk to school if they are within a two mile radius of the school.
There are some public schools that require you to pay for some of your education, never mind sports. I post with a woman on another board who had to pay for things like A/P classes and driver’s ed. I think she’d shell out upwards of $400 at high school registration time every year. I also think her taxes were under $1000 per year. Where I live, they aren’t allowed to even require us to buy school supplies. The schools are supposed to supply everything needed.
My HS kids’ fees last year (3 kids) were upwards of $700–for a public school, mind you, in a well off suburb of Chicago. Sports fees are $50/year–it pays to play 3 sports, because the max fee is $100. No school supplies included.
Hell, my youngest’s fees (5th grade) are $180. No supplies included.
And both districts passed recent referendums and are supported by the communities. :mad:
I don’t have a problem with this. In fact, I agree with it. I have no kids and I pay property taxes equal to someone with kids, a large percentage of which goes to fund public education. I’m fine with that; I accept that a well-educated population is a benefit to everyone.
However, sports, band, and other extra-curricular activities are not required. If someone wants to participate in them, fine. But don’t expect me to fund these things.
Seems to me we had to pay a fee for our son to play last year. Some amount for each sport, I don’t remember because my wife wrote the check. Then you have to buy equipment in a lot of cases. Then, of course, you need extra stuff depending on the sport. There are ways of getting around the fee for needy kids and there is usually some equipment the school provides or can loan.
The situation in the OP sounds like a summer program, not sponsered by the school - of course you have to pay. Sometimes high school teams will plan to attend a summer sports camp or play on a summer league together to get ready for the season but these things are not part of the schools program.
Heck, I was talking to a sports trainer the other day who is already training a high school football team. Rules tell the HS coaches when thay can start practice but nothing prevents a team (independent from the coach -wink) from getting together and hiring a trainer.
Which is fine and dandy if you can afford to pay it and choose not to, but if you can’t, then you have a whole buncha kids who are denied participation in things most people take for granted because of their family’s income level. I find that sad, as someone who was denied participation for a completely different set of reasons.
But there’s *always * going to be things that some people can afford and some people can’t afford. I never went to summer camp because my folks couldn’t afford it. Should tax money have been used to subsidize that, just because some people *could * afford it?
I do have a problem with at least some of it, as I see a lot of these extra-curricular activities being something that makes a person more well-rounded and teaches skills that aren’t necessarily reinforced during regular school hours. We have small lessons in teamwork during classes these days via group projects, but let’s face it: those don’t actually work out a lot of the time because there’s almost always a lazy person in the group who makes the others take up his slack. In sports and band, people are actually encouraged to work together where they can see results based on what they’re doing in that immediate moment. In other extracurriculars, you also are encouraged to do group work and to cooperate with the people in the group, which is something that a lot of kids these days seem to be missing in the younger ages.
Acid Lamp is currently teaching art at a fine arts camp and he finds that it’s only the older kids that he can get to do group projects because the younger kids aren’t getting enough reinforcement in the group activities area; it’s not that they’re too young to cooperate, it’s that they haven’t had enough coaching in the “don’t be selfish” and “let’s work together” areas. He tried a couple of times to do group projects with them, and half the time it ended up in the kids squabbling and complaining that they weren’t going to bring home their own project that day. (Mind you, these kids make so many things during the week in the art camp that they forget half of them and leave them behind.) He had to give up on one major project with them and do it himself because he tried the first part of it with them and it ended up with some of the girls engaging in screaming and hair pulling over who got to use the same item. It’s ridiculous.
I may never have kids and I’d still gladly pay property taxes that fund activities that enhance a child’s education and sense of partnership within their community.
Most schools that I’m aware of have funding available for kids whose parents can’t afford the fees. It seems like that’s a big part of what the sports booster clubs do. And it seems pretty common for well-off parents to chip in a little extra on top of what they pay for their own kids. My high school had an extremely active alumni association that was very, very proud of the school’s band and football team, and I know they donated money for that and other extracurriculars. These solutions may not cover all of the costs, but I doubt that most schools say, “Screw you, poor kids! No sports for you!”
This isn’t terribly new to me. When I was in school in the mid '80s my mother had to pay $15 for a physical and $200 for insurance and equipment maintenance so I could play HS football. Plus providing the cup & shoes.
Band was the same way. It seemed like there was no end to the band booster fundraising stuff and, when those funds did not cover what we needed, the parents had to pony up even more (ironic because the fundraising moneys was from the parents anyway).
As a single young adult I used to get really worked up about having my taxes pay for other people’s children to do what have you. Eventually I changed my mind though. If these kids aren’t playing ball or something, they are gonna run around and cause trouble ranging from petty theft to drug trafficking. I’d rather pay to keep them occupied and out of the justice system, its a lot more expensive for me and society at large if these little devils are sitting around without anything to do.
I’m kind of split on this one. On one hand, extracurricular activities really build a lot of character, so it’s good. On the other, I’m paying school taxes and don’t have any kids. Then I remember that* I* went to school, so if I look at it as paying back my own education (even if I’m in a different city or state, it all works out in the end), it makes sense. At the same time, this would eliminate the "football gets more money than [my sport] complaints.
Both my sons played sports in public school, both played in the band/orchestra. In addition to every other fundraiser you can think of, they also had to supply their own instruments. And by that I mean, you couldn’t rent them from the school, you had to either own them or rent them from a music store.
You know, my parents couldn’t afford a lot of things a lot of things either. That doesn’t mean I think that kids shouldn’t have the opportunity to have them if it can be provided to them.
This. I know I’ll never have kids (don’t even like 'em, really), but I have no problem with paying my taxes to fund educational AND social (sports or clubs or arts) programs to help make kids better prepared to be participants in society. There are enough poorly-socialized, and/or uneducated people running around out there that I have to deal with on a regular basis.
Oh, and what Cornelius Tuggerson said about keepin’ 'em off the streets, too.
Okay, okay, I’m 99% sure I don’t want kids, but I still like 'em in small doses. I just think that a lot of kids need more adult role models who are actually appropriate, and one way to do this is to have more extracurriculars that enforce the ideas of teamwork and being part of a community and being productive.
I work in a public library, and I see that there are enough latchkey kids that could use with more participation in activities that’d make them better members of society. Hanging out on MySpace and other social websites at the library all day just teaches you to be a mean person with poor social skills, which is part of why we try to provide programming for kids and teens, but the schools should be able to afford extracurricular activities for the kids as well. If the schools don’t do anything, and other public places like the library don’t do anything, what are some of these kids going to be doing all day? The most harmless of all of it would be playing videogames all the time, and the worst would be involvement in crime at a young age. Do we need more juvenile delinquents because someone doesn’t like the idea of their taxes going toward a traditional “betterment of society through its youth” program?
:mad:
I just think that a lot of kids need more adult role models who are actually appropriate, and one way to do this is to have more extracurriculars that enforce the ideas of teamwork and being part of a community and being productive.
) tendencies…Kids are okay…