<p>LOL, but what the school do well is to mitigate the time involved. Generally the seasons, the practices and the competitions revolve around the school year. The hours that are practiced are regulated by high school athletic associations. It was my observation that sports outside the schools were the sports that required too much time (IMO) and competitions were scheduled on weekends and at great distances. And yes, kids that participate in sports and some of the more intense extra curricular like music, theater, etc. do learn how to balance their lives and they do learn how to study efficiently because it is necessary.</p>
<p>Bay’s post #36 and bigdaddy’s post #39 both make me see red.</p>
<p>First, Bay, you seem to have missed the point that I was replying to the post of a parent who said academic competitions for high schoolers are rare. They aren’t. I named some of those that exist. My principal point sailed over your head. </p>
<p>Second, if your kids’ school funds high school sports to the same level as academic activities, it’s unusual. Most schools do not. My offspring’s high school alma mater was a long way from a sports powerhouse. It did, however, hire local college coaches to coach high school teams for small amounts of $ augmented by parental donations. Academic teams had to sponsored by teachers who were paid via union contract. My offspring joked because they found out who their favorite EC’s sponsor was when the yearbook came out. There was a teacher who agreed to sign the necessary forms so the team could exist in return for a substantial amount of $. Signing the forms was the extent of the teacher’s involvement. The principal was VERY sympathetic to this particular EC so he had it meet in a classroom directly across from his office. It was entirely student run, but on paper he "supervised " it when the sponsor was absent. We paid for an outside coach. The amount we paid was a LOT more than the sports parents had to pay–I know this because my D played one sport for one year. </p>
<p>Third, it’s a lot harder to START an EC than to join an existing one. Heck, I know, from kids and parents on this board, that there are high schools that won’t even pay the cost to administer the AMC (an important math exam.) Lots of kids never even find out that science contests like Intel exist–let along get any help. Lots of kids who would benefit don’t know that there are competitive leagues for things like chess or debate or model UN or Fed Challenge.</p>
<p>Fourth, I know that Latin Club and Student Government may not involve the same commitment as a sports team. But the kid who is a “competitive” musician is going to put in MORE time than the student athlete…with a lot less support from the school. The kids who are national circuit level in debate or mock trial will also put in MORE time than the typical student athlete. They may not suffer the same sort of physical injuries, but the sleep deprivation and emotional stress will just as high–if not higher–with a lot less support and public recognition.</p>
<p>Again, I’m not opposed to sports. But the idea that the “average” member of a high school sports team has to have more dedication to and spend more time practicing his/her sport than a Julliard-bound musician or a national circuit competitor in debate or mock trial is absurd.</p>
<p>^^^here’s the hole in your argument. Hundreds of kids participate in varsity sports in most HS. Each and everyone is subject to the physical and emotional stress. Super competitive musicians like the Juliiard bound ones are few and far between. Maybe a handful in the state. They no doubt put in an incredible amount of time and sacrifice.</p>
<p>Also, it is easy to diminish the constant threat of physical harm, but it is a real stress that only athletes have to deal with.</p>
<p>I think big daddy underestimates the number of serious and accomplished musicians at the high school level. There may not be hundreds per school, but they are out there. The average varsity athlete has no chance of playing at a div 1 school. How many kids from one high school basketball or football team go on to play div 1 college ball? Super competitive athletes are probably more rare than super competitive musicians. A serious and accomplished high school musician/performing artist probably has a greater chance of being admitted to a performance degree at a university or a conservatory than an athlete does of playing in div 1. I think these kids are subjected to just as much emotional stress as an athlete even though they will probably never break a leg during the normal course of practice or performance.</p>
<p>For example, there are about 156k high school senior boys basketball players, but only about 4k freshman NCAA basketball spots.
<a href=“http://www.collegesports*****************/percentage-high-school-athletes-ncaa-college.htm%5B/url%5D”>http://www.collegesports*****************/percentage-high-school-athletes-ncaa-college.htm</a></p>
<p>I am always suspicious when an article contains information that is simply incorrect. When reading the article linked with the original post, I noticed that the author claims that the first high school football game took place in the year 1900. Thought that was odd, as the HS I attended has a football rivalry that began in the 1890’s. I googled high school football rivalries and the first games were played in the 1870’s. Not that I care especially, but it makes me question the credibility of the article.</p>
<p>I think sports are highly beneficial for students who need to have an outlet. Teenagers cannot be living their lives just by doing schoolwork all the time. It is rather unhealthy that way. However, the budgets for the different sports teams are vastly different. For example, sports like football get a ton of money while sports like Bowling get close to nothing (whether Bowling is a sport or not is for another discussion). </p>
<p>The only reason why sports might not be so good the way they are is because a student has to have serous skills to make the team. That leaves out people who are willing to try sports, but are not at super-athlete status. For that reason, I think that schools, especially the bigger ones, should promote intramural sports, so that students can stay active despite the fact they did not try out or make the school’s team.</p>
<p>If high school sports were separated from high schools themselves and made into some kind of separate “league” or whatnot, I would be willing to bet that academic performance would not increase, and it might instead drop, as there no longer will be the incentives put forward by coaches to have their athletes keep certain min. GPAs. </p>
<p>Combined with the likelihood that the dropout rate would skyrocket as well. </p>
<p>Overall a horrible idea. Thankfully it’s not being taken seriously in the mainstream, although it definitely proves an intellectually fascinating debate. All great ideas/institutions have to remind people of their justification every so often.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I certainly think HS sports could be improved but I hate this idea (which is a lot like AAU basketball and/or club soccer). Here are some of the reasons I hate it
- Instead of walking from a hallway to the locker room at the school … the student will need to be transported to and from practice … their sports day will be even longer.
- Instead of playing with a life-time cohort group from their town … they will play with a random collection of strangers. Yes, they will get to know these folks but to me deepening friendships at their school is one of the best things about school sports.
- Representing one’s school is a great experience and, to me, way above representing Club PayALot
- Finally, the club sports world is pretty tough (at least around here) … clubs recruit new guys and dump old ones all the time … in the end, rosters are very fluid and a players experience is much less predicatable than on school teams.</p>
<p>I don’t think the real question here is whether or not to have sports at all, but whether high school sports have gotten out of hand. If you’re on a sports team, you can’t do any other extracurriculars. My D wanted to play tennis for the high school team, but would have had to give up debate, student gov’t, and other activities to do so. If you’re in a sport, you can’t take family vacations, even in summer. Even if you’re not in a school sport, the school day for everyone starts earlier than it should to accommodate sports practice. I understand that there are talented atheletes who may need to devote a large amount of time to their sport, just as talented musicians do, but for the most part, that’s not the case. We have professionalized sports at every level, but especially in high school, to a degree that’s simply not appropriate.</p>
<p>It would be nice if communities had some say in the enormous amount of taxpayer dollars that are going toward high school sports. Our town recently floated a referendum asking for a million-dollar bond to put in a turf field. It was soundly defeated.</p>
<p>I see your point about the amount of time and emphasis put on sports in high school. However, my kids have found ways to be involved in other activities despite being two sport varsity athletes. Things like Model UN, student ambassador, Relay For Life, etc. The president of this year’s class is a hockey player. He is also ranked #7/251. Last year’s president was captain of the lacrosse team and valedictorian.</p>
<p>None of the countries with top ranked schools used education funding to fund sports. I have been tired of all the money thrown in to sports while the schools claim to not even be able to afford math teachers where we live.</p>
<p>I want to add that at our schools, football, cheer, and band practice several hours a day, including during the school day. On Saturday, some players were yanked from the SAT early because they had to be at a game or something. The only kids at the SAT from those teams were ones taking the SAT 2 which should have been done a little earlier. But, they were pulled out at 10:30am, despite not being done (they all had taken 2 tests, with each being 1 hr long, they thought they would be done by then). </p>
<p>And, the only kids allowed in football or cheer are the tops. The girls in cheer have been taking cheer since 2 and 3 yrs old and all have to have a good tuck mastered as well as other skills. At a recent game, 2 girls got taken away in ambulances. And the football players…it is a rare person that makes it to the high school level for football. And if they do, they throw away their academic careers. I feel not only should we not have to shoulder the cost of these teams (at the expense of our children being educated) but the kids on the teams are being exploited in that they cannot even finish an SAT over a too intense schedule. They were even at the school until midnight Friday and back for a game the next morning. That is typical. And the parents who put their kids through this are, just, more in to showboating their kids than they are in to their kids. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, our schools do not even offer any sort of sports for kids who are not capable, or in to, the heavy hitter stuff (for a lack of better words).</p>
<p>Another huge problem with removing sports from high schools, making all sports into “club” sports, is that model automatically eliminates participants based on family income.</p>
<p>My kids play/have played on their high school teams and on outside club teams. It requires money and parent time for kids to play club sports. Parents pay club dues, pay for uniforms, pay for equipment, pay for transportation, pay for tournaments. It requires <em>someone</em> willing to take the time drive to practices, drive (or fly) to tournaments, etc. A large number of families are blocked out of participation in club sports due to time and expenses involved.</p>
<p>High school sports, at least in my experience, are free for the participants. Uniforms are purchased through Booster fundraising, personal equipment can be provided through booster funding, the cost to participate can be $0. Most families spend money on equipment, but it isn’t necessary. Most parents donate money and time to the boosters and to the teams, but it isn’t a requirement.</p>
<p>Our public schools don’t fund much more than a small stipend for coaches, and a very small stipend for uniforms and fields. We do, however, pay one administrator salary per high school whose job is athletic and activities director. They are in charge of all extracurricular and sport activities that take place on the school grounds. All of the high school stadiums in the county are being upgraded to artificial turf, but the cost is shared between the County Parks and Rec Department and the public schools. The rec department gets additional fields for rec league sports, and the high schools get better playing fields.</p>
<p>Actually schools around here make you pay a user fee of $100 or more depending on the sport for a high school student to play.</p>
<p>I know other areas of the country charge for students to participate in sports. I understand the thought behind that, and it makes sense, as long as there is some funding available for kids who want to participate but can’t affort it. It seems wrong to cut athletes in public schools based on ability to pay.</p>
<p>Yes I believe at our small public all kids pay ‘something’ to participate. There is funding for families with need. The schools know which students are getting subsidized lunches, etc.</p>
<p>"“Another huge problem with removing sports from high schools, making all sports into “club” sports, is that model automatically eliminates participants based on family income.”</p>
<p>It doesn’t have to. Communities could local sports leagues just like they support parks, marinas, and…schools. </p>
<p>In our area (which is not football-crazy), they clearcut what had been a beautiful park of running trails (and dogwalking) to make way for a football stadium that maybe 5% of the students (and no adults) ever get to use, plus blacktop for parking. All this in the name of “physical education”. </p>
<p>I think every high school that has football should be required to take out and permanently fund a 50-year disability policy for each and every player. If it really isn’t a problem, it won’t cost them much.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Our school charges $100 or so per sport, but there are fee waivers for those who can’t afford them. There are also surcharges for the more expensive sports (like hockey, tennis and golf) that require rented facilities. And when I say “surcharge” I mean $800 or more. So not surprisingly those sports are full of kids whose families can afford not only those fees but additional training throughout the year to give their kids all the advantages they can.</p>
<p>Having had 3 sons who have all played or are participating in multiple HS sports and somehow have managed to learn to read, write, and add (while also participating in Music and other ECs BTW) I started to prepare a scathing criticism of the article without actually reading it. It’s a long article and given I also played HS sports I can only read for so long before I have to turn on a football game :)</p>
<p>So I read the entire thing. And my reaction is … Duh. Duh #1 - Schools should not fund sports or any EC if they don’t have the money. Duh #2 - It always comes down to money, where’s it coming from, who gets it, etc. Don’t lump the question of whether HS sports are good, bad, or indifferent without seperating the funding issue. Duh #3 - If you have to cancel sports in your school to get kids to come to class, behave, and graduate, you have MUCH bigger problems than Johnny having to go to practice after school and Suzie being preoccupied with perfecting her golf swing. The idea that HS sports is somehow responsible for the problems of the school in the article is beyond laughable. Duh #4 - Obsession with anything (sports, music, debate, job, social life, academics themselves, etc.) can get in the way of kids maintaining the balance they need in HS. </p>
<p>I frankly don’t get it. My kids were/are all involved in two demanding sports in HS at a large school in highly competitive state. The benefits of their commitment to those sports far outweighed the sacrifice. One chose to continue athletics at the collegiate level. His coaches were THE most influential figures (in a positive way) during his HS experience. One chose to hang them up and focus on a demanding academic path as he started college this Fall. He was most influenced by several of his AP teachers. Influence can come from anywhere in the US HS. That is the beauty of our system.</p>
<p>One final anecdote. I was an exchange student in Germany in the 80’s. As noted in the article, they don’t have school sponsored sports. So after class each day, the students didn’t head off to Football practice (or debate or choir or whatever EC). Guess what, they didn’t head home to study either. They headed to a Pub EVERY day and sat around drinking beer for several hours.</p>
<p>Who’s responsible for helping our kids develop balance? The school system. No thanks. I think that’s my job as a parent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is not universally true. I was a three-sport varsity athlete and participated in MANY EC activities including Boy Scouts.</p>