Pay-to-play . . . high school style

Crossposted from teaching

There is a lot of discussion among teachers and parents on the expanding number of districts that charge participation fees for sports and other extracurricular activities.

The Christian Science Monitor article at http://tinyurl.com/6xfmp has really gotten discussions going.

The following is my response to a request for opinions on the topic, and I wanted to share it with you.



This is rapidly becoming a major issue in the Northeast.

The good thing is that most schools have programs to pay the fees for the families that truly cannot afford them.

My view is that extra-curricular activities are absolutely vital to a rounded education, especially with more and more class time devoted to specific preparation for standardized tests.

The need for such fees arises out of a lack of support for education by the specific cities and towns. That's really where the problem is. It's important for schools to be as visible as possible in their successes so people will see that these activities are benefiting the students and the community.

I think it's critical that school groups do outreach to the community, bringing senior citizens and veterans in for events, doing a lot of volunteer work. For instance, last year in a nearby town, the high school football team played a role in renovating a closed restaurant into a homeless shelter.

My main interest in these plans is in those that call for all extracurricular activities. As a National Honor Society adviser, the idea of PtP for NHS is just crazy. (Yes, many chapters have dues of $10 or $20, but not the $100 some schools seek).

Of course, I have other views on that subject as well. Requiring a fee indicates that schools do not understand the role of NHS. Too many teachers, schools and parents look at it as a glorified honor roll and something to add to college resume. A properly run NHS chapter is the premier service organization in the school and is a major force in coordinating volunteer opportunities for students to take part in throughout the community. Charging someone to be able to volunteer sounds rather strange to me.

Here's another thought: A pay-to-pay plan that calls for payment for school clubs could be a potential problem for Gay Straight Alliance. Parents who don't want their kids involved won't pay. (We're fighting the parental permission issue even without pay-to-play.)

We are eliminating the student's ability to dabble, to sample different clubs. I also fear we are setting ourselves up for parent complaints. If there are five starting positions on the Chess club and 10 kids who have paid to play, there will be five sets of parents who are probably going to be more unhappy than the other five.

I am glad the issue is being raised, and I hope there's something we can do about it.