Got into an interesting discussion with my folks over the weekend. My mom spent some 30+ years on the school committee and still keeps an ear out for the latest buzz, and learned that our local district is thinking of charging admission to all high school sporting events. Currently only football games require admission, and there is a movement afoot to charge for all five "major" sports (hockey, basketball, soccer, and baseball as well as football). The onion in the ointment, as it were, is that the district already charges a $350 fee for participating in each sport.
Dad's position is that since they charge for football - even though they collect a user's fee - they have every right to charge admission to other sports.
Mom's position is that paying the fee should be sufficient, with the football admission being the one legacy holdover from the days before there was a user's fee (the admission from the games historically went towards upkeep of the football stadium).
I lean towards dad's side of things - they've established precedent by charging a user's fee for football while continuing to charge admission to games. While I agree with mom that it's ridiculous to charge such a steep user's fee and then expect folks to cough up money to go to games, the fact is that they've been doing it for years with the football program. Personally I think it's emotional terrorism - you have to pay to see your kid play, and if you don't pay then you can't see your child taking part in their chosen sport.
The thing that worries me, though, is that some parents may view the paying of admission as absolving them from good behavior. They may view themselves as spectators of a game rather than as parents watching their kids play, and comport themselves accordingly - heckling the referees, talking over announcements, etc. Charging folks a set fee to watch their own kids play a game changes the fundamental dynamics of the relationship between the parents and the governing body (school) - where before it was understood that this was an amateur undertaking with most of the principal players volunteering, now there's an expectation of professionalism that I don't believe the school is ready for.
What say you? Should schools charge admission to high school games even though there's a user's fee?
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Whoa whoa whoa...back up...your father thinks governments have rights? If so, the fee-charging argument is way too late.
I'm for the "if you think its a good idea to charge me admission to see my sone play, when I've already paid a user fee, you must be either brain dead or a liberl (yes, essentially the same thing)" Parents paying admission to watch their already-fee-paid kids play on an already-taxpayer-funded facility is about as enjoyable as a root canal.
How about this - do away with the football admission. Charging admission for everything else 'just beacause' they already charge for football makes about as much sense - and is the same slippery, oppressive slope as - 'common sense gun control'.
Gov't entity charging you money? Yeah. Tax.
"It's just a small tax on your tea. Why are you Bostonians getting so upset about it?"
From the same public school types doing such a stellar job teaching reading, math, and history.
AW,
Poor choice of words on my part.
Dad's point is that since they're already charging admission and a user's fee for football - and folks are paying both - that the school charging both for other sports is consistent at the least.
Dad's point was that we've accepted paying for both, so we shouldn't be surprised that the school is expanding the fee + admission structure to other sports.
None of us thinks it's right in any sense of the word. The school has already hooked you in - your kid wants to play sports so you pony up the money for the user's fee. Don't want to pay? Kid doesn't play. That's how they've decided to fund the sports programs.
But to decide, later, that the parents will now have to pay to watch their kid play? What options are there? You either pay - giving the scheme tacit approval - or you don't watch your child play the sport they love.
That's BS in anyone's book. It's little more than emotional terrorism in my book.
I think we all know that the likelihood of the school doing away with *any* fee or charge is pretty remote - all those assistant vice principals and their administrative assistants don't come cheap you know...
NJT,
It ain't just MA, my friend. Government overreach is pretty damn near universal...
In the Clark County school district in NV, they already charge for everything. I had to pay band fees, etc., for my daughter to participate in band, and I had to pay to watch her perform at football and basketball games, AND they charged steep admission fees for marching band competitions, as well. It's just the way it is nowadays. I say either charge at every sport, to make things "fair" (ugh), or do away with admission fees altogether. The likelihood of the latter is about the same as the likelihood of you being elected governor of MA. No offense. ;)
...But when I lived in Clark County, I paid $900 in annual property taxes on my house.
I pay at least that much monthly in NJ.
I remember some 20+ years ago, asking the folks for 2 or 3 bucks to get into the game. We always had to pay to get into sports events. I even recall paying to get into track meets. Now I don't recall my folks ever having to pay a fee that high to let me play football. I guess $35 back then might have equated to $350 now, but who knows. My kids are young enough that they haven't been hit with public school sports yet. Flag football and Soccer through the Y are all we do now...and yes there are fees, but no admission price to the game.
CyBuzz
How about having the user fee include tickets for the parents and charge everyone else? Seems like a reasonable compromise. I have no problem with charging for tickets and user fees as long as the money collected goes to support the programs involved and not the general fund. It's more fair than taxing everyone to pay for it.
The problem comes in when they keep adding on more taxes and fees to support yet more spending. This is the problem with government in general. I'm all for moving things more toward pay for what you use, but it seldom works out like that.
I have to add the initial disclaimer that I don't have kids, or even close child reletives that I have to go watch do such activities....
I have no problem with the initial fee for playing the sport (I'm assuming it pays for uniforms and such equipment, correct me if I'm wrong), but to then charge the parents AGAIN to see the home games? Maybe they should just charge the non-immediate family attendee's to the games instead? Course then that opens a whole nother can of worms.
Paying admission to non-school district related compititions I don't have a problem with, but charging the parents twice so their kid can play a sport is not a good way to keep the kids playing, parents will decide there's a limit to the availible money and put their foot down...
Post a Comment