http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/09/21/time-for-a-ban.html

What does the ohio chatter group think of this proposal?

At this point, districts would need to seriously re-do their budgets for this to happen. They've grown accustomed to making bank on these fees.

I think people should pay to play.

Small time statehouse politico looking to make a name for himself by bringing this up....He damn well knows there is no money available to eliminate these fees. He should be kicked in the balls.

I have no problems with pay to play. The fees are usually pretty reasonable.

Great idea...unrealistic and won't happen!

There should be no pay-to-play fees. Most people already pay ample taxes to fund the entire educational experience, including extra curricular activities. These fees started out as nothing more than a blackmail attempt to get taxpayers to approve levies for more taxes so that wages and benefits could be increased for teachers and staff. Those school boards that did not have the balls to balance their budgets with the resources provided fell victim to this tactic, or in some cases rode along with it in cases where they had a conflict of interest. There should no pay-to-play fees; it only hurts those who in many cases are the most aspiring and wish to further dedicate themselves to wholesome activities outside the classroom ( as opposed to wondering off and getting involved in unsavory stuff).

I don't have a problem with pay to play as long as the fees are reasonable ... Get some skin in the game if you want to play..

I think most school have the ability to waiver the fee for entitlement families so what the big deal...... And or the booster club chip in the money...

QuakerOats;1752494 wrote:There should be no pay-to-play fees. Most people already pay ample taxes to fund the entire educational experience, including extra curricular activities.

Should taxes of non-athletes families be paying for those of athletes?

hasbeen;1752517 wrote:Should taxes of non-athletes families be paying for those of athletes?

yep if sports are available to their kids

I only skimmed the article, but I think play to pay is ridiculous. How did schools budget it prior to this? The biggest problem is people double dipping, and jobs being created so people can go home at 3 p.m. When I was in high school (2000-2004), the AD was a teacher, as well as a coach. 6 years later there was an AD, and an assistant AD, and neither of them taught (maybe a period or two of gym). They sat in their offices and dipped all day. This is one example of the rampant, and stupid, spending that occurs in high schools. Same thing as each school having a principal and AP, when only one is needed, or one for 2 schools (elementary and middle for example). The non-necessary staff needs to be removed, and pay to play shouldn't even be an option. And school districts wonder why their levy's fail, when everyone knows about their terrible budgeting, and double dipping principals and superintendents.

The fact that double dipping is ok in school districts is a joke. Instead of allowing new, young applicants to get into the system, they have teachers and administrators retire and rehire, so that they get a lower salary, yet their full pension, but because it comes out of different buckets it's ok. Derp.

iclfan2;1752539 wrote:How did schools budget it prior to this?

I don't know the answer but school funding is a huge issue and I don't understand why nobody has tried to find a solution. Didn't they declare Ohio's method of funding schools as unconstitutional several years ago? And nothing has changed.

I asked this question because I am a full time teacher, (7 out of 8 periods) as well as the high school AD (15 varsity sports) for a small rural southeast Ohio school district. We do not have pay to play, but we also don't offer any AP courses and are operating with a skeleton teaching staff. I also coach Jr Hi football and assistant boys basketball coach. No way can our district operate with a pay to play, big number sports like football, soccer and baseball/softball would fold due to economic reasons in our area. I get why some districts went to it, but I also see why some districts waste money. My teaching, AD and coaching pay barely equals the pay for AD's in some local districts with secretary's and assistants. It's a balancing act that some districts need to reign in, but some districts are also doing what's right with minimum support from the state.

I thought for a second this thread might be about Kasich getting kick backs from his buddies at the Charter schools.

redstreak one;1752551 wrote:We do not have pay to play, but we also don't offer any AP courses and are operating with a skeleton teaching staff.

Unfortunately I think many communities/parents do not prioritize academics high enough. I've always thought parents were the biggest hurdle for a child's education. If the parents aren't behind it, then there is little IMHO a school can do.

Property values in our neck of the woods are very low. Waverly, just up the road has tried for years to up their millage on property taxes and get shot down every time. We would be operating on a skeleton staff, even if we didnt have sports. Less than 1% of our budget goes to athletics.

I don't like pay-to-play, but I think a lot of it comes from teams trying to get new equipment/uniforms... every year or two. I'm pretty sure some schools are still using the same stuff they did 10-15 years ago, so they don't "need" the extra revenue. I'm talking football specifically when I say all of this. There's really no reason each kid on a 50+ roster needs to have the new 360 helmet or w/e it's called, but they do. That causes spending to go up. I think it was Sidney a few years ago had pay to play, and it was like $450/activity. No fucking way.

If you budget correctly, you SHOULDN'T need it. If it is needed, something reasonable like $25-$50 for things like spirit packs are ok. We didn't have pay to play, when I was in school, but we were required to buy a t-shirt and shorts that was supposed to be worn on Saturday mornings and a polo that was supposed to be worn on game days to school. That amounted to about $20.

FatHobbit;1752556 wrote:Unfortunately I think many communities/parents do not prioritize academics high enough. I've always thought parents were the biggest hurdle for a child's education. If the parents aren't behind it, then there is little IMHO a school can do.

This is the #1 problem in education. Nothing else matters if this is not fixed.

sleeper;1752603 wrote:This is the #1 problem in education. Nothing else matters if this is not fixed.

Not going to happen with today's society, this generation thinks school is nothing more than free babysitting so they can sit at home and collect the government hand outs.

bigkahuna;1752583 wrote: There's really no reason each kid on a 50+ roster needs to have the new 360 helmet or w/e it's called, but they do.

With today's climate concerning concussions, a district/school/HFC should really be on top of ensuring their helmets grade out high enough to protect themselves. That doesn't mean you need the $300+ helmet. I believe the local school here has $275 helmets for grades 9-12 that have all been purchased within the last 5-6 years. Get a few new ones in and replace older ones, etc.

That ends up being a priority.

Heck of a lot different than back when we played. Concussion numbers have sky rocketed and it's because any type of head issues gets labeled a concussion and treated that way.

In my opinion, pay-to-play only means the school district is not allocating funds appropriately. We luckily do not charge pay-to-play, however we do charge in other areas. Here is the area that gets me every single year.

School Supplies: $50(ish) from the store
School Clothes: Whatever you want to spend
SCHOOL FEES: $55 (and climbing) every freaking year

I'm sorry... My elementary kids don't need to pay to go to freaking school. I think each grade should be accountable and give a breakdown of what these fees are actually paying for. When my kids have to bring Kleenex, Clorox Wipes, and other stupid crap as "supplies," then why the extra $$$ amount for "fees?"

My gripe??? ... Our district runs a $7 million carryover.

sleeper;1752603 wrote:This is the #1 problem in education. Nothing else matters if this is not fixed.

What needs fixed? Go ahead...

iclfan2;1752539 wrote:The fact that double dipping is ok in school districts is a joke. Instead of allowing new, young applicants to get into the system, they have teachers and administrators retire and rehire, so that they get a lower salary, yet their full pension, but because it comes out of different buckets it's ok. Derp.

You do realize that, in many cases, these "double dippers" come back at zero years, and stay there. The district would not hire them back if they were not valuable to the district... at least a district that has some balls.

National average of district budgets towards athletics is around 5%. That's not that much.

Threatening to drop athletics to raise taxes or pass levies is ridiculous. But, that said, I do believe there should be participation fees...and should remain reasonable. Families grow up K-6 (maybe through 8) paying athletic fees for any league. Why should that change just because the athletic affiliation has changed? Keep the fees around $25-100 per sport (depending on the area and the cost around there for the particular youth leagues) and it's a great supplement to a district budget that does see crazy fluctuations through the course of a school year.

ernest_t_bass;1752608 wrote:What needs fixed? Go ahead...

Might as well start a new thread for that. Education is a disaster in this country and it starts with a lack of prioritization in American society about its importance.

You can add getting rid of all of this mandatory testing BS and getting rid of teacher's unions/CBA.