Introduction
The pay-to-play program is a growing trend among school districts in various states within USA. The students are required to pay a nominal or substantial fee to take part in extracurricular activities including; sports, school band and clubs. By 2009, over 33 states had districts implementing the pay-to-play program; it has since grown significantly. The practice has received support and criticism from various groups in USA. Despite its popularity, there is still limited research-based data on its impact on students. In my opinion, the practice has several disadvantages that must be addressed in regard to the provision of free public education (PSBA, 2010).
In order to comprehend the challenges associated with pay-to-play, it is vital to understand its origin. Over the past few decades, American public schools have created expansive programming focused on enhancing the overall educational experience. There are several programs for both classroom and extracurricular activities. The emergence of several programs creates budgetary pressures on the school administration, students, local, state and federal government. Many school districts lack the ability to support the funding of all educational programs in schools; this leads to the adoption of new fundraising strategies to fund the school systems. The pay-to-play program is one of the strategies; faced with the shrinking funding and rising costs, many districts have developed the idea of charging students for participation in extracurricular activities. It helps augment the regular budget; many districts adopt it as a last resort to ensure the provision of extracurricular activities in the basic public education system during tight economic times. The program also ensures the schools do not make cuts in the funding for other academic programs.
Challenges
Despite the needs that lead to its creation, the pay-to-play program’s disadvantages must be addressed and eliminated from the school systems in America. First and foremost, by charging students for participation in extracurricular activities, the program undermines the concept of free public education. The discriminatory nature of the program sidelines students that cannot pay the required amount. Though some charge low amounts between $15 and $50 annually, others are very costly. According to Hoff and Mitchell (2006), a high school on the West Coast charges $1000 for football, $80 for marching band and $1500 for cheerleading. It has negative consequences for children from underprivileged families that may desire participation in the activities. Though some schools claim they have fee waivers for the underprivileged students, it does not make a significant improvement on the situation. The situation raises equity concerns among students in the school districts. Those unable to afford the fee risk being excluded from activities necessary in enhancing their educational experience. The inequity also arises when one school, with many paying students, can offer more sports activities while others cannot.
Though the pay-to-play programs are provided for in the constitutions of many states, they pose other legal concerns. According to state courts nationwide, adequate and equitable public education should be provided through all schools’ financial policies. The participation fees raise concerns on whether it is contrary to the state’s constitutional responsibility of ensuring free public education; this is particularly because sports and extracurricular activities form an integral part of a student’s education.
According to PSBA (2010), the program has been declared unlawful in some states; this follows restrictions in the states’ statutes and constitutions’ provisions on the right to free public education. Through court rulings, explicit statutory prohibitions and state agency interpretations, the state considers extracurricular activities a necessary part of public education guaranteed by state laws. Such states believe extracurricular activities’ benefits should be accessed by all students. They should get equal opportunities to participate and enhance the development of interpersonal relationships, non-regular problem-solving skills, teambuilding, language, reasoning and cognitive development. It ensures the provision of essential aspects of a well-rounded education (PSBA, 2010).
In other states, athletics, student clubs and bands are not regarded as part of the guaranteed basic public education. It eliminates any legal obligations and allows local school officials to impose participation fees for such activities. In Pennsylvania, for instance, courts concluded that neither state statutes nor the constitution guaranteed students’ participation in extracurricular activities. The Section 511 of Pennsylvania’s Public School Code gives local school boards the power to adopt reasonable regulations and rules regarding extracurricular activities. However, it is vital to note that the statutory provision does not give a detailed explanation on participation fees as a fundraising method.
The program is also likely to lead to the death of small programs, clubs and sports. The groups depending on a small number of students for sustainable participation in extracurricular activities will die off if the students cannot pay or refuse to participate due to the fee. With low fees, participation rates do not diminish significantly. However, higher fees lower the participation rates by over 30% according to research done by Scott Smith (PSBA, 2010). Participation fee makes very little positive influence on the extracurricular activities budget. It only serves as a limiting factor for students hoping to be involved in sports and other activities. Some families even go as far as transferring their children to schools in school districts with none or minimal participation fee requirements. It decreases enrollment figures in some school districts (MHSAA, 2014).
Possible solutions
According to Hoff and Mitchell (2006), there are several alternatives to the pay-to-play that can be adopted. Despite the shrinking school resources, students’ needs continue rising. It is vital to note that extracurricular activities are a crucial part of education, integral to the achievement of student development and school goals. The school can generate alternative sources of revenue to support the programs.
Some of the alternatives include cutting: one day of competition from the schedule, a week off a season and out-of-state or off-campus pre-season training trips. A reduction on travel expenses by finding more competition locally is also efficient. Schools can also eliminate holiday break competitions and practices. Such alterations are better than subjecting students to a participation fee or eliminating sports (MHSAA, 2014). The alternatives are more defensible and sensible in comparison to the pay-to-play programs. They can accomplish better or similar financial results while ensuring the maintenance of the overall quality of sports programs in the school districts.
All stakeholders in the schools should work together in establishing cost-saving policies. Such moves will lead to the adoption of policies including; sharing transportation costs, emphasizing intramural activities, eliminating team travel to expensive conventions and training camps and capping the number of interschool competitions as discussed above. The focus on educational benefits lowers the expenditure and reinforces the core curricular values. The adoption of such programs will ensure upholding of public school ideals and the maintenance of a successful and viable extracurricular program even in the face of financial constraints (Hoff & Mitchell, 2006).
Conclusion
The pay-to-play program making students pay for participation in sports and other extracurricular activities has been met with mixed reaction. It emerged as a means of ensuring schools cope with the tough economic times and limited funding. It is, however, a program riddled with several challenged; an understanding of its shortcomings helps in understanding the need for its elimination and adoption of other efficient programs. There are several alternatives school districts across American can adopt in eliminating the financial problems they face. It will ensure all students have access to extracurricular activities without limitations associated with the participation fees.
References
Hoff, D. L., & Mitchell, S. N. (2006). Pay-to-Play: Fair or foul? Phi Delta Kappan. Retrieved October 10, 2014 from http://www.westga.edu/documents/pubs/023747_246.pdf
Michigan High School Athletic Association. (2014). A Participation Fee Primer. Retrieved October 10, 2014 from http://www.mhsaa.com/mhsaa_archive/news/feeprimerpub.pdf
Pennsylvania School Boards Association. (2010). Special Report on Pay-to-Play: Fees for participation in school extracurricular activities. Education Research and Policy Center. Retrieved October 10, 2014 from http://www.psba.org/issues-advocacy/issues-research/research-resource-center/pay-to-play-August2010-revisedSept2010.pdf
