There was an excellent article in The Atlantic (October 2013) by Amanda Ripley about high school sports.

Anyone concerned about the budget situation in Fairfax should read it.

"The United States routinely spends more tax dollars per high-school athlete than per high- school math student—unlike most countries worldwide. And we wonder why we lag in international education rankings?"

"Sports are embedded in American schools in a way they are not almost anywhere else. Yet this difference hardly ever comes up in domestic debates about America’s international mediocrity in education. (The U.S. ranks 31st on the same international math test.) The challenges we do talk about are real ones, from undertrained teachers to entrenched poverty. But what to make of this other glaring reality, and the signal it sends to children, parents, and teachers about the very purpose of school?"

"Football at Premont cost about $1,300 a player. Math, by contrast, cost just $618 a student. For the price of one football season, the district could have hired a full-time elementary-school music teacher for an entire year. But, despite the fact that Premont’s football team had won just one game the previous season and hadn’t been to the playoffs in roughly a decade, this option never occurred to anyone."

Premont eliminated sports. The school did not implode-in fact, things got better.

The sense of entitlement exhibited by the minority of "turf worshippers" was sickening, however:

"“We were freaking out,” says Mariela, a former cheerleader and tennis and volleyball player. American kids expect to participate in school sports as a kind of rite of passage. “We don’t get these years back,” she told me. “I’m never going to get the experience of cheering as captain under the lights.”"

If "Mariela" really thinks "cheering as captain under the lights" defines her life, her parents need to get out the checkbook. Where does it say she is "owed" this expensive experience?

Premont is in Texas-has Karen Garza brought a plague with her?

I agree nobody is owed the experience. Parents of athletes should be expected to at least partially fund the program. But the learning I did as a result of being a part of a team was in ways far more valuable than some of the BS I sat through in the classroom. Eliminating the programs is a bad choice; requiring participants to partially fund is not.

If sports are so important, they should be mandatory and part of the SOL. This of course would beg the question as to why other countries do better than we do with sports being in private clubs.

When students are in trailers, we can't afford turf.

YLHYw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Parents of athletes should be expected to at least partially
> fund the program.

Agreed. However if you have kids who are in athletics, in band or in drama, then chances are you are already helping to fund those activities. These activities have "voluntary" fundraisers that are anything but. You are expected to raise a certain amount of money, and if you fail to do so your parents are expected to kick in the rest. Since the expectations are set well above what can ordinarily be raised, much of the money is coming from the parents of the participants. In addition strong efforts are made to enlist parents as boosters, meaning you are frequently having to participate in additional fundraising activities.

The OP is making a fundamental error in equating turf fields with school athletic programs. In this area at least much of the demand for things like turf fields is not being driven by school athletic programs. It is being driven by community athletic programs. A turf field is capable of being used more intensively than one of natural grass. This means that more programs can be scheduled on those turf fields. In most instances these additional programs are community athletic programs rather than school programs. If we were honest those fields should probably be paid for by parks departments whose job it is to provide facilities for community athletic programs. However whether paid for through the parks departments or through the schools it is still coming out of our tax dollars.

But we're not honest. Garza, Bulova, Reed, Kaufax, Gross and the rest don't know the meaning of the word. For some reason, the County thinks letting little Ms. What's Her Name "captain under the lights" is more important than teaching kids how to read.

But Bill N. is right, the turf fields should be paid for by the Park Department.

And, it's not just the money that is devoted to sports. If the total cost of cash and the necessary resources devoted in addition to the money, the cost would be staggering.
Think about this, most college recruiting for boys and girls basketball is now done via AAU. It wouldn't matter one bit if the school system did away with high school basketball. Kids who wanted to could still play AAU and it wouldn't hurt them at all.
Every time the school board comes up with a budget crisis, the obvious is ignored.
The first thing that should be cut is non-academic programs, including band.
And for those who say that so much is learned from sports, I agree, but how do you measure those lessons learned when comparing US schools with other nations?
And, I say this as retired teacher and coach.

I am from a country without high school sports. I came to the US my last year of high school. I had a 4.0 GPA and because of my language skills (from home and having to learn English) as well as my ability to play a musical instrument (private lessons, no "marching band" at home) I had no trouble getting a scholarship.

I did a degree in the US but went home for graduate school. I attribute my success to my education, which did not contain pep rallies, school spirit, cheerleading, marching band or turf fields.

That's my perspective.

At least in the western part of the county, the fields are largely funded by the schools and local youth clubs. For instance, the field at Westfield was a joint project between their booster club and CYA. At Centreville, SYA and the school booster club kicked in money and the booster club took a substantial loan. A small amount came in from the schools' operating fund, and the fields were in planning stages for quite a while before they were built. Loans are being repaid- and money for replacement and repair set aside- through huge fund-raising efforts at the schools and in the community. The money isn't being pulled from a classroom. Just clarifying. I believe Robinson and Lake Braddock are following the same course.
In the eastern part of the county, I know there is frustration because the kids there don't have turf fields and the parents can't make substantial contributions to bolster the efforts to build them. I have heard chatter about the county helping them, but it's only rumors to this point as far as I know. That possibility is sure to be controversial though.

It isn't limited to high schools. Check out the breakdown of where your college tuition money goes. Some colleges it ads up to nearly two thousand smackers.

Per the latest budget, the funds for turf have been cut. Let boosterthon and that little entitled cunt figure out how to pay for the ability to captain under the lights. That whole thing makes me want to puke. All of these helicopter parents need a MAJOR reality check, as do their whiny kids.

Terror of Turf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There was an excellent article in The Atlantic
> (October 2013) by Amanda Ripley about high school
> sports.
>
> Anyone concerned about the budget situation in
> Fairfax should read it.

If the article is so good, why did the OP wait 6 months to post about it and then not include a link?


> "The United States routinely spends more tax
> dollars per high-school athlete than per high-
> school math student—unlike most countries
> worldwide. And we wonder why we lag in
> international education rankings?"
>
> "Sports are embedded in American schools in a way
> they are not almost anywhere else. Yet this
> difference hardly ever comes up in domestic
> debates about America’s international mediocrity
> in education. (The U.S. ranks 31st on the same
> international math test.) The challenges we do
> talk about are real ones, from undertrained
> teachers to entrenched poverty. But what to make
> of this other glaring reality, and the signal it
> sends to children, parents, and teachers about the
> very purpose of school?"
>
> "Football at Premont cost about $1,300 a player.
> Math, by contrast, cost just $618 a student. For
> the price of one football season, the district
> could have hired a full-time elementary-school
> music teacher for an entire year. But, despite the
> fact that Premont’s football team had won just
> one game the previous season and hadn’t been to
> the playoffs in roughly a decade, this option
> never occurred to anyone."

If we are lagging behind in math, the reason is not because we spend more on sports. In fact the OP shows no solution to improving math scores, instead, says that for the price of football we can hire a music teacher (whether or not the music teacher is needed). How will that help with math scores? It won't. But it will make the FCPS haters feel better.

Also OP, where are the facts and figures about turf in this post. Your subject is very misleading.