Cutting funds for extracurriculars deprives students
Comments(5)
High school students are working their tails off so they can earn money to keep their choir, dance line, debate team and track team going.
Because of budget cuts, the so-called extra curricular program funding is being sliced.
School boards somehow think that being on the newspaper staff, the choir and the dance line isn’t educational. If the kids are in a classroom, they are learning and if they’re on the football team and tennis court, well that’s not learning.
Even school administrators who should know better insist that if high school kids want to play football or go out for the track team, they should help pay the cost.
As a result kids and their parents are paying $260 to be in the class play and $200 to be on the dance line
Those kids who can afford it get the extras while those who can’t pay and probably need it more than the payees sit on the sidelines. Public schools are becoming elitist. .
I contend everyone needs a co-curricular (extra curricular) activity in their school life, regardless if they can pay for it.
There’s evidence to show that a kid does better, and stays in school, when they are on a team.
Music critics tell us that there is a direct relationship between kids who take music and their academic ability.
I’m told that the best predictor of future success is their participation in co-curricular activities.
In my own case, I know that my debate training made me a better editorial writer.
I recall when I was a member of the panel interviewing Coon Rapids High School’s best scholars for a scholarship to West Point Academy.When asked which was their most memorable experience, they pointed to their success at a music festival, a high school sports tournament and success in forensics.
We need to keep reminding school boards that cutting funds for extracurriculars deprives kids of important life-long learning experiences, as important as some of the information they learn in the classroom.
What do you think?
Extra-Curricular activities are absolutely enriching and educational. For the most part cutting options there ultimately has a negative effect.
In the end, however, the money to make the books balance has to come from somewhere. This is an overly simple answer to an incredibly complex question, but if the option is either cut from core education or cut from extracurricular options – I’d probably be inclined to lean much more heavily towards extracurricular.
What if the option was to add a fourth tier to the tax bracket? What if we wanted to raise the tax rate on couples earning more than $250,000 from 7.85 percent to 9.25 percent? What if that tax increase would ONLY come on the money earned OVER $250,000?
Why am I even asking that question… our politically postured pass-down-the-burden governor already gave us the answer.
Interesting that the solution offered by the other commenter here is a set of variations of the same theme: “tax increases, on someone other than me”.
Then in the same comment he goes on to belittle the Governor for allegedly passing down the burden onto others.
Hmm. Very interesting.
How would the fourth tier not impact me? Do you know, for a fact, that my future household income will not exceed $200,000 (correction from the previously stated $250,000, although the proposal was altered a few times). My soon-to-be-wife is in the overpaid medical industry working as a hospital pharmacist. Don’t make assumptions “other commenter.”
I will gladly pay more taxes to provide for other people. This concept has gotten lost in the American dream, but us crazy radical liberals are bringing sexy back.
Median wage for Pharmacists in the MSP metro = $118,00 per year.
http://www.deed.state.mn.us/lmi/tools/projections/detail.asp?code=291051 &geog=2702005120
If anyone would like to pay more taxes to provide for other Minnesotans, they can do so right now (and even print a receipt to share with the rest of us to show how generous you are) at this site:
http://taxes.state.mn.us/taxes/e-file/other_supporting_content/usetax_steps.shtml