Yeah, But What Would They Do With Those Tackling Dummies?
I visited with my parents over the weekend and somehow we got on the subject of public schools and the challenges many school districts across the country are facing when it comes to budget cuts, teacher layoffs, and eliminating programs and classes, ranging from theater and music to physical education.
My father, who tends to lean pretty far to the right, suggested an idea I don't often hear proposed as a means of cutting costs: Eliminate school sports.
"You mean the ones that can't pay for themselves, right? Football or any other sport that can break even or bring in revenue could stay, right?"
"No," he said, arguing that even those who bring in revenue don't pay for themselves after you factor in the expense of coaches (or teachers who also coach), equipment, travel (busses and gas), maintenance and/or construction of school stadiums and fields, and so on and so forth.
His argument was that the core responsibility of schools is to educate in subjects that can further students on to either higher education or the marketplace of employment or both.
"What about the intangibles that school sports teach?" I asked, citing leadership, team work, dedication, physical fitness, etc.
He countered that, ultimately, it is a small percentage of any school's population that actually utilizes and therefore gains from school-sponsored sports. His broader point was that if finances are tight it is important that schools focus on their core responsibilities.
I should state now for the record that I would not support this idea in practice and I don't think a majority of parents and/or voters would support it either. Indeed, we may debate controversial school board policies on everything from science to civics, but school sports seem to be relatively non-partisan. But, for the sake of this entry, I will play the proverbial Devil's Advocate and try to look at it from a strictly financial standpoint.
It is, in theory, a fair argument to say that school sports are a drain on the budget and despite their positives to both the individuals who participate in them and the broader student bodies and communities they serve, they are not essential in the education system. In fact, in terms of lasting educational qualities and/or the potential for advanced learning on the college level (as a major, minor, etc.) and/or marketable skills I would place football (which I played but was not very good at), soccer, baseball, track (also played), cheerleading, and other sports and/or ties to school sports well behind art, music, theater, and other programs/classes so often reduced or eliminated while sports see little if any reductions in funding. Think about it: A student who plays 4 years of high school football is, statistically, less likely to become a successful professional player than another student who is active in theater or music for 4 years would have in finding work and/or pursuing higher education in the arts. Granted, a scholarship student athlete could gain access to higher education that he or she might not otherwise be able to have and that is of significant value. (The debate of sports on the higher education level is for a whole other entry!)
If one follows or agrees with my father's original argument -- that the school's core purpose is to educate students in core subjects like science, mathematics, literature/writing, language, etc. -- then the argument to cut everything on the fringes might be a valid point. No drama, no music, no art, and, yes, no school-sponsored sports. Let the marketplace serve those purposes, right? There are, after all, community organizations all over the country that have recreational leagues for sports, theater courses and workshops for young people, and programs in everything from painting to pottery. So why should schools, using public funding, provide those services when they are non-essential?
The answer to that question is simple, of course: Because not everyone can afford the access to such pursuits and, historically, we have placed the experiences students gain from football, school plays, learning an instrument, or painting a picture to be of value. As such we've made them part of the available curriculum on either an optional or semi-required basis. However, it does seems a bit unfair that school sports are so often untouched while arguably less expensive but equally valuable non-athletic programs struggle to survive. The part of my father's original argument that I could somewhat agree with would be this: If we're not going to have the arts or music and we're going to eliminate physical education classes then, yes, maybe school sports should go too. Why should a student with a passion for acting have to see his or her opportunity denied while a baseball player still gets a field, balls, bats, travel to away games, etc.? My splinter, if you will, to my father's argument would be to say, "Fund it all or fund none of it."
And yet the reason I can't get behind such an idea isn't because I think school sports are something sacred (though, if the book, TV series, or film Friday Night Lights is even half-true, it is to some) or that the experiences from them can't be replicated via other avenues. No, the reason I wouldn't advocate slashing sports is based in the reason I get continually frustrated over cuts to arts and music: Extra curricular activities and/or elective courses gives us better, well-rounded students. I, for example, was not alone in my school or I suspect within the wider world of education in being a student who tolerated, attended, and passed the subjects I wasn't crazy about in order to be able to attend the ones I was excited about. Science was 4th period and if I wanted the theater that came in 6th period that meant I had to attend both. And I knew athletes that ran the gamut from being Straight A students who also played football to students who struggled academically but worked hard to maintain the required grades for their sports or activities, be they laid out by the school or by their parents (or both).
If we were reinventing the educational system from the ground up... and I mean literally tearing every school down and starting over from scratch... then it might be a fairer argument to say, "Don't build that theater. Don't build that stadium or construct that field. We don't need a music room. Don't buy those uniforms." But we don't live in that world and I don't much like the notion of it even in an imaginary scale. But it might be worth asking from time to time if our sports programs, as well as our arts programs, are best serving our students? Are the coaches teaching principles of leadership and teamwork or is just win, win, win? Are our theater teachers encouraging our young thespians to truly search for the meaning in the text or is it just about memorizing lines and wearing costumes? Is paint and a canvas in a school room giving a student a true opportunity to express something they could not express without them?
We should ask a lot of questions about our current education system and high among them should be how do we make what we already have better and more efficient? If there are subjects or activities with no measurable value then we should eliminate them. But hopefully we can start from a common ground based in helping students find the things that help them become who they're going to be by the time they're ready to go on to the next place that will further shape who they are. And I don't think we start, continue, or finish that journey by taking things away.
J
My father, who tends to lean pretty far to the right, suggested an idea I don't often hear proposed as a means of cutting costs: Eliminate school sports.
"You mean the ones that can't pay for themselves, right? Football or any other sport that can break even or bring in revenue could stay, right?"
"No," he said, arguing that even those who bring in revenue don't pay for themselves after you factor in the expense of coaches (or teachers who also coach), equipment, travel (busses and gas), maintenance and/or construction of school stadiums and fields, and so on and so forth.
His argument was that the core responsibility of schools is to educate in subjects that can further students on to either higher education or the marketplace of employment or both.
"What about the intangibles that school sports teach?" I asked, citing leadership, team work, dedication, physical fitness, etc.
He countered that, ultimately, it is a small percentage of any school's population that actually utilizes and therefore gains from school-sponsored sports. His broader point was that if finances are tight it is important that schools focus on their core responsibilities.
I should state now for the record that I would not support this idea in practice and I don't think a majority of parents and/or voters would support it either. Indeed, we may debate controversial school board policies on everything from science to civics, but school sports seem to be relatively non-partisan. But, for the sake of this entry, I will play the proverbial Devil's Advocate and try to look at it from a strictly financial standpoint.
It is, in theory, a fair argument to say that school sports are a drain on the budget and despite their positives to both the individuals who participate in them and the broader student bodies and communities they serve, they are not essential in the education system. In fact, in terms of lasting educational qualities and/or the potential for advanced learning on the college level (as a major, minor, etc.) and/or marketable skills I would place football (which I played but was not very good at), soccer, baseball, track (also played), cheerleading, and other sports and/or ties to school sports well behind art, music, theater, and other programs/classes so often reduced or eliminated while sports see little if any reductions in funding. Think about it: A student who plays 4 years of high school football is, statistically, less likely to become a successful professional player than another student who is active in theater or music for 4 years would have in finding work and/or pursuing higher education in the arts. Granted, a scholarship student athlete could gain access to higher education that he or she might not otherwise be able to have and that is of significant value. (The debate of sports on the higher education level is for a whole other entry!)
If one follows or agrees with my father's original argument -- that the school's core purpose is to educate students in core subjects like science, mathematics, literature/writing, language, etc. -- then the argument to cut everything on the fringes might be a valid point. No drama, no music, no art, and, yes, no school-sponsored sports. Let the marketplace serve those purposes, right? There are, after all, community organizations all over the country that have recreational leagues for sports, theater courses and workshops for young people, and programs in everything from painting to pottery. So why should schools, using public funding, provide those services when they are non-essential?
The answer to that question is simple, of course: Because not everyone can afford the access to such pursuits and, historically, we have placed the experiences students gain from football, school plays, learning an instrument, or painting a picture to be of value. As such we've made them part of the available curriculum on either an optional or semi-required basis. However, it does seems a bit unfair that school sports are so often untouched while arguably less expensive but equally valuable non-athletic programs struggle to survive. The part of my father's original argument that I could somewhat agree with would be this: If we're not going to have the arts or music and we're going to eliminate physical education classes then, yes, maybe school sports should go too. Why should a student with a passion for acting have to see his or her opportunity denied while a baseball player still gets a field, balls, bats, travel to away games, etc.? My splinter, if you will, to my father's argument would be to say, "Fund it all or fund none of it."
And yet the reason I can't get behind such an idea isn't because I think school sports are something sacred (though, if the book, TV series, or film Friday Night Lights is even half-true, it is to some) or that the experiences from them can't be replicated via other avenues. No, the reason I wouldn't advocate slashing sports is based in the reason I get continually frustrated over cuts to arts and music: Extra curricular activities and/or elective courses gives us better, well-rounded students. I, for example, was not alone in my school or I suspect within the wider world of education in being a student who tolerated, attended, and passed the subjects I wasn't crazy about in order to be able to attend the ones I was excited about. Science was 4th period and if I wanted the theater that came in 6th period that meant I had to attend both. And I knew athletes that ran the gamut from being Straight A students who also played football to students who struggled academically but worked hard to maintain the required grades for their sports or activities, be they laid out by the school or by their parents (or both).
If we were reinventing the educational system from the ground up... and I mean literally tearing every school down and starting over from scratch... then it might be a fairer argument to say, "Don't build that theater. Don't build that stadium or construct that field. We don't need a music room. Don't buy those uniforms." But we don't live in that world and I don't much like the notion of it even in an imaginary scale. But it might be worth asking from time to time if our sports programs, as well as our arts programs, are best serving our students? Are the coaches teaching principles of leadership and teamwork or is just win, win, win? Are our theater teachers encouraging our young thespians to truly search for the meaning in the text or is it just about memorizing lines and wearing costumes? Is paint and a canvas in a school room giving a student a true opportunity to express something they could not express without them?
We should ask a lot of questions about our current education system and high among them should be how do we make what we already have better and more efficient? If there are subjects or activities with no measurable value then we should eliminate them. But hopefully we can start from a common ground based in helping students find the things that help them become who they're going to be by the time they're ready to go on to the next place that will further shape who they are. And I don't think we start, continue, or finish that journey by taking things away.
J