I think everyone wants the programs funded that will help their kids. I have two very average kids. Adding more AP classes in German and Physics wasn’t going to help them. Adding more counselors or mental health counselors wasn’t going to help either. I don’t begrudge other students getting what they need, but why should my kids also not get what they need? Someone has to set the budget.
Mine started at a new school in second grade, in a very wealthy district. There were 22 kids in their class and 5 would go to special reading classes, another 4 were off to G&T time in the lab, a few would go to work with the 3rd grade math teacher, several went to ESL (26 languages in the school). My kids sat in the classroom all day long (and one had an IEP). All the comings and goings were very disruptive but no one cared about the average kids. We left the school after about 5 weeks.
So do I think it is a good use of public funds to have a sports team that benefits 50 kids instead of funding a program that may only help 5? Yes. I’m glad that there was a theater program that was enjoyed by 100 students. Sometimes we, as society, have to spend the money where it will benefit the most students.
When my daughter played a sport at a California public school, it cost me almost $900. No late buses (in fact no buses at all at that school), most equipment provided by the players, volunteer coaches. If the school had cancelled her sport, there would have been exactly $0 left to direct to another program or pay the salary for a mental health provider.
I often wonder where parents with kids with very different needs want the funds directed. Does the quarterback’s parent want the football team cancelled to direct the money to mental health because they also have a son who needs those services? Do they want the the school play cancelled even though their daughter really benefits from it and is very talented?