An outrageous idea (for Maine)

[Shorebound]

With all the talk about saving money in education by cutting and consolidating, I'd like to throw out an idea that's been nibbling around the back of my head for a while. Every time taxpayers demand that schools cut costs, one of the first tactics is to propose the elimination of the most popular sports programs - usually football. But that begs the question: Why should public schools have any sports program? I propose we look at the possibility of eliminating all extracurricular sports programs from schools in Maine. Europe has local sports clubs, sort of like our Little League teams but on a more organized basis.

So that's my idea. Cut all sports from Maine public schools and let local sports clubs form to frill that need. What do you think?

[Deep Thinker]

1. I disagree

There is much to be learned from playing sports. It is the ultimate (at that age) coming together of a diverse group of people to achieve a common goal. It teaches kids how to work together, how to be a part of something larger than themselves and how to depend on another when the rubber meets the road. I think the education gained by playing school sports is almost as important as the education gained in the classroom.

[Shorebound]

3. Deep Thinker

But why does it have to be _school_ sports? Are young people in Britain or France less educated because they don't have school sports equal to those in the U.S.? What about the Maine students who don't play sports, either through choice or lack of athletic ability? Are they somehow lesser people for the lack of that experience? In the final analysis, aren't school sports an elitist activity that is deliberately designed to exclude and (often) humiliate less-talented students? Why should that be supported by tax dollars that could be better spent on scholastic improvement?

And yes, to a certain extent I'm playing devil's advocate here, but in Governor Baldacci's search to reduce property taxes, we need to be able to look at outrageous, even radical ideas because that discussion can lead us in new and potentially rewarding directions.

[Maine-ah]

4. elitist? no.

you have to also try out for bands, choruses, & drama, not too dufferent from sports. They all raise money through boosters & so does the sports teams to a certain extent.

[Shorebound]

5. Non-sports activities

True to a certain extent, but not nearly as exclusionary as the high school basketball team. We can only wish band and drama attracted the same financial support from the school board that the football team did. Besides, an argument can be made that arts activities are legitimate educational pursuits, far more so than the soccer team. And the success of booster clubs only reinforces my concept. If non-school entities can provide sufficient financial support, why should taxpayer dollars be involved?

[Maine-ah]

9. I certainly agree with you on the financial aspects.

just not on the labeling. I myself was a "band geek", so was my husband, but also several of our "star" athletes who were talented in both, and none of them portrayed themselves as being any better than anyone else (parents though are a different issue). I guess thats why I reject the "elitist" label

[crim son]

8. How so?

It's true that school sports teaches certain lessons but I don't believe these lessons can only be learned on the field.

My kids are in a pretty good school system here in Bangor. But I'm friends with some of the teachers of science, math, etc. and have heard them remark in indignation how students are not permitted to go on a field trip to, say, a science museum because they'd "miss too much classroom time", but the same students leave school early at least once a week to participate in away games. Even if we could claim that there is something essential to be learned by playing sports, it is apparent that it's not so important that the kids are forced to play team sports and it's definitely not more important than math or science. This of course is MHO.

[Maine-ah]

2. sports are way more important than education!

:sarcasm:

[luckyleftyme2]

6. THIS HAS BEEN A PLOY FOR YEARS

There are several ways used in the past to keep the school budgets high. One scare tactic is to threaten to stop school sports.As a rule this will generate enough anger to get "john q public" off his duff. The other is to threaten teacher cuts and courses taught.
Seldom is the cost of a new school cut.Many of these structures are located away from the
center of the population and more and more busing is required.
We need to cut our school costs in more ways than one and this can be accomplished without
harming the system. by merely cutting the fat and being more effective.

[Shorebound]

7. OMG

Lucky has written something I agree with, and he did it in a calm, reasoned way. Your point about new school construction, in particular the locations, is excellent. Belfast faced a situation several years ago where it was cheaper for the SAD to build a new junior high school on farmland outside town -- and bus every single student -- than to repair the old school in the center of town that many students could walk to, because the state would pay more of the costs for the new school than for the repairs. That's also one of the reasons Brunswick built a new high school way outside town rather than fix the old one in town.

[mainegreen]

10. Because too many kids are fat and lazy? Because the gov't needs to at least *try*...

and instill some sort of exercise ethics, and *gasp* tie exercise to fun?