Introduction
One of the most controversial issues over the past few years has been the rise of “pay-to-play,” which requires students to pay user fees to enable their children participate in interscholastic athletics. Normally, public schools should be free, but due to budget cuts, decline in tax revenues and rising staff costs, many are introducing pay-to-play fees, charging students extra money for everything, from sports, and even some classes, such as French and basic sciences.
There is an increase in number of schools charging students fee to participate in sports, a trend that sports advocates and educators say pose a danger to the concept of public education and the overall effort to enable more children involved in athletics. “Pay-to-play” charges participants about $50 to $250 per season (Cook, 2012). The fees are sometimes higher, for example, in Oakmont Regional High School charges student athletes more than $1,000 to join football club (Brown, 2002). Most parents cannot afford these fees, which would discourage the development of talent among students. As such, pay-to-play programs are not good public policy because it places the burden on parents and discourages nurturing of talents.
Background
Some schools argue that instead of eliminating extra-curricular activities, Pay-to-Participate plan will help cover the cost of the existing programs. The pay-to-play program covers students at the middle and high schools levels participating in sports activities. These include varsity athletics, all intramural sports, as well as set clubs and other extracurricular activities, such as play production, music production, forensics, and debate. It, however, excludes students participating in these activities as a class. Some schools offer a family fee cap for families with more than one student, and financial assistance available for families who demonstrate financial need.
Pay-to-play is not a new concept, but the current economic environment is causing to escalate. Typically, these policy programs charge students a fee for participating in a sport and affect the overall amount spent per student. Budget shortfall has prompted public schools to impose fees on students who register in many academic and extracurricular activities. Pay-to-play is not a new phenomenon as there are reports of pay-to-play dating back to 2004 and earlier. By 2005, 33 states had pay-to-play fees in place at some schools (Cook, 2012). More recently, a survey conducted in August 2010 of 179 private and public schools by Pennsylvania School Boards found that, 22 public schools and 7 private schools required students to pay to play (Cook, 2012).
Problem Statement
Undeniably, in Hartzell v. Connell in 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that learning institutions must provide for all students regardless of their family’s willingness or ability to pay fees (Donnelly, 1997). Many district officials have indicated under different conditions that pay-to-play program is not the appropriate choice, but maintain that it is the best way to ensure they save extra-curriculum activities in schools. It is difficult to discredit this practical argument as desperate circumstance often lead to solutions that are less-than-ideal.
Position
In my view, pay-to-participate has many shortfalls in a number of accounts. One of the shortfalls is the possibility of creating a system that segregates between the haves and the have-nots. The immediate impacts of pay-to-play are disturbing as most officials and authorities maintaining that the implementation of the program leads to decline in participation (Brown, 2002). This has created unexpected, but economically predictable difficult situation, namely, that higher feels may compromise the actual revenues from pay-to-participate programs, thereby eliminate some of the practical advantage anticipated by administrators. Many schools have started getting rid of their pay-to-play fees, or device creative ways of covering for them to ensure all children get easier access to the full range of the learning activities they offer.
The Connecticut Association of Schools conducted a survey of schools on the program, and administrators of schools who had adopted that program moved back to more traditional model, citing hidden flaws within the system. Some of the administrators said that the system brought accounting problems, not considering the expatiations of the parents that their children would get playing time. Some also found that the amount raise was not enough and did not outweigh the number of administrative issues that arose. Many had the idea that it placed athletic directors and coaches in an awkward situation due to the expectations by parents that provided they pay a fee, and then they will expect their children to participate in all games. Additionally, some students do not like sports and parents of such children who pay might feel shortchanged. This is not practical in high schools sports, especially at the varsity level and their role as administrative record-keepers to ensure that all have paid the fee.
Some states require schools to waive academic, but not athletics fees for poor students. Poorest children come from families earning an income of less than $29,000 a year for a family of four (Cook, 2012). Those who fall above the cutoff can face sanction if they fail to complete their fee. Schools may also withhold diplomas of students who fail to pay their fees in full. Even with the availability of waivers, supporters of parents with low income contend that it violates the spirit of free public education when parents are to seek charity help to pay for their child’s extra-curriculum. Parents and administrators also worry that fees might affect the chances of some students accessing good colleges across the country now that they charge substantial pay-to-play fees not only for arts and sports, but also for modest activities, such as forensics and community service. Some of the charges include $200 to join Students against Drunk Driving, $350 to participate in the chess club, $50 to clean beaches with the Environment Club, and $85 to write for the literature club (Simon, 2011).
Pay-to-participate extra-curriculum activities are terrible reason to make children inactive. Children deserve rights to access education both in and out of the classroom that does not cost. Children should remain healthy and active, yet schools charge them to engage in sports that would help keep them moving. It would prove tormenting to a child who dream of playing basketball, but cannot play it at school. Students should not experience a situation where a position in a team is. Additionally, lack of funds should not deter gifted children from on the school team. Student should earn extra-curriculum activity positions through dedication and hard work, not by fat wallet. In order to protect the rights of children, keep them interested in going to schools, and keep them healthy, it is important to dispose pay-to-play extra curriculum activities.
If administrators believe that a comprehensive education for some children is the best education for all students, then it is not honest to choose which aspects of that education are free and which are not. Pay-to-participate is not ethical to the mission of public education and represent thoughtless education policy that has the potential of introducing discrimination. Inter-school sports have long been a source of pride to the community, as well as a way of developing a general purpose and an agent for productive social change. Many students learn many things through the disappointment and joy that extra-curriculum deliver. It would not sound well when the administrators adopt any program that stand in the way of providing these valuable experiences to all students.
It is agreeable that the economy is getting tight, and schools have no choice but to device means of coming up with budgetary solutions that are not pleasant. However, it is evident that school boards, legislators, and the community at large acknowledge that shutting some children from opportunities will produce long-term harm. At the least, districts should consider dropping pay-to-play fees when the wage bill stops smarting so much. America should be the land of opportunity for all children regardless of their earnings. In conclusion, the government should come in, and device means of ensuring that all students have equal access to all learning activities, including extra-curriculum activities.
Paying for everything is not feasible, but some still support pay-to-play. For example, Darrell Trump, Monroe Board of Education Chairman advocates for the policy. (Cook, 2012) However, public schools should take into consideration that parents are already paying for shoes, equipment, game tickets, and holding fundraising. The increased in school fees resulting from pay-to-play will discourage poor parents who are not able to pay for their children. Despite the regular pay-to-play fee, parents also incur additional costs, including equipment, uniforms, and additional team fees. This greatly increases the average cost for a child to participate in sports.
Conclusion
Forcing parents to pay for pay-to-play program would not only burden them, but also reduce the number of students participating in extra-curriculum activities. Cost containment and a level playing field can be achieved if public schools unite to establish reasonable ground rules to eliminate pay-to-play program. In conclusion, the government should come in and device means of ensuring that all students have equal access to all learning activities, including extra-curriculum activities.
References:
Brown, J. (2002). Will pay-to-play ruin school sports? The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0920/p12s01-alsp.html
Cook, B. (2012). Will 'pay to play' become a permanent part of school sports? Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcook/2012/08/22/will-pay-to-play-become-a-permanent-part-of-school-sports/
Donnelly, B. (1997). Cheap shots and costly pay-offs: A plea for purpose in public programs. Public Administration Review, 37(2), 181-186.
Simon, P. (2011). Public schools charge kids for basics, frills. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703864204576313572363698678
