|
Children's activities are worth the cost
Date published: 7/30/2010 Children's activities are worth the cost I do not see the problem the residents of Spotsylvania County have with the pay-to-play policy adopted by the School Board for the future of middle and high school sports programs. The parents of marching band students have always paid to play (that is, they pay for musical instruments). As a proud band parent, I must say we have no funding whatsoever from the county, besides a place to practice. So let's talk about I can appreciate $100 per sport per family. How about $1,200 just to start up in marching band? Add the cost of competitions, shoes, plumes, gloves, etc. It adds up. And at Chancellor High School, our uniforms are worn and torn, yet no one is complaining. Our uniforms are 27 years old. I ask the residents of Spotsylvania County this question: Do you not deem our students well worth your money? Support "pay to play." You know where your kids are and whom they're with; they're working hard and building positive peer groups. To me, that only betters our community as Winnie Vyverberg Spotsylvania
|
Date published: 7/30/2010
I say ...
(posted by
Beacon1964
, Aug. 2, 2010 1:30 pm)
No pay no play and I mean ya pay for it all not just chumpy change of $100. If a uniform for football costs $750, the field another $500 and lights, water & sewer for the year another $200 a player on the team than the parents need to pay $1450 to let there kid be on the team but nope not by the current system. They still get to milk the taxpayers pocket and only pay a pittance of what it truly costs to let there child be on the team. It was there choice to have the kids so why do we need to pay for them?
that's how the state funds schools through
(posted by
larryg
, July 31, 2010 5:44 am)
the SOQs which are tied to the SOLs and academics. The
problem with the "everything is education" approach to
taxpayer funding is that "everything" that can be remotely
connected to education is deemed deserving of tax dollars
and the result is a myriad and wide array of programs that
add significant costs to the schools. An academic
education is an entitlement. Things beyond academics are
not the sole responsibility of taxpayers. The primary
purpose of public schools is an educated workforce.
Maybe the best thing to do . . .
(posted by
GRice74
, July 30, 2010 9:52 pm)
. . . is to stop subsidizing anything not tested by SOLs (there may be a better place to draw the line - I'm no fan of SOLs). The schools simply provide the facilities, instructors, & set standards (for safety, etc.). Funds for everything else can come from parents, students, fund raisers, & donations. In addition to budger savings, this would also build more commitment in the activity since there's more invested in it, & maybe even encourage finding ways to accomplish the same goals more economically.
point remains that much of the
(posted by
brightheart
, July 30, 2010 5:24 pm)
cost of band is in the instrument--a personal piece of equipment that the student can take with them after high school or sell. except perhaps for golf clubs, there is no equivalent in sports. as for fundraising, guess what? sports teams already do and have been doing fundraising. looks like they need to make more of a point of advertising/ complaining about it. what do you think the booster clubs do?
not so 'birght heart'
(posted by
mich22408
, July 30, 2010 4:07 pm)
Using your philosophy, why do the band students have to buy their instruments to begin with - regardless of if they are in the marching band? Shouldn't your tax dollars fund this? It is education afterall. BTW, I had two boys in marching band, we had fundraisers to raise the money for those trips. Fundraisers, what a novel idea for sports. This is the problem, most jocks (and their parents) think they are entitled to the sports. Do something to earn it.
|
