Recession brings forward anther kind of "Pay to Play"

Certainly playing football should not be considered a Constitutional right. So why should the taxpayers pay for it. In this case, "Pay to Play" makes perfect sense:

Instead of gearing up for playoffs and state championships, South Dakota athletes could become part of budget cuts that would eliminate such activities.

That scenario, while very real in many areas of the country, is not likely in South Dakota. High schools across the country are reporting the recession has led to financial difficulties for extracurricular programs. Schools from Hawaii to Rhode Island have trimmed compensation for coaches, eliminated transportation, added or increased athletic fees for students, held fundraising drives and cut back on night games to save electricity costs. Others dropped some sports and related events.

Many school districts are sharply raising fees for sports and other extracurriculars in what's known as "pay to play" - a move that angers many parents. Some object that imposing heavy fees for extracurricular activities merely widens the gap between haves and have-nots. Others, however, say such decisions rightly reflect schools' primary focus - academics.

"I'm not sure that it is even allowed in South Dakota at this time, but I do know it's something I really don't want to see," said Watertown High School Athletic Director Doug Schooley. "The cost of funding school activities has always been considered part of the educational package."

According to a survey by the American Association of School Administrators, if current school budget trends continue, sharp sports cutbacks may become reality in many hard-pressed schools. The proportion of school districts cutting extracurricular activities, including sports, for the 2009-10 academic year almost tripled, to 28 percent from 10 percent during the 2008-09 academic year.

Comments

[TD]

Studies have shown that when students are active in their school and in school activities - whether they be sports, fine arts or anything in-between, they are more likely to do better in school, less likely to fail a grade and less likely to drop out.

While I agree that a schools main purpose is for academics, if a school activity helps kids focus and do better in school then isn't that part of academics?

[Steve Sibson]

TD,

No it is not academics. It is the parents responsibility, not the taxpayers, to make sure their children are physically fit for school. It is also the parents, and not the taxpayers, to provide their children with entertainment.