The End of HS Sports?

As reported in today's Boston Globe article, the town of Stoneham is facing the elimination of the entire HS sports program after voters defeated a tax override proposal on Tuesday. Facing rising costs, the Stoneham School Committee voted to impose a number of cuts and cost-savings measures, including cutting Arts, Music, and all Varsity sports.

Stoneham, a town of 22,000 without a great deal of commercial property, has a school budget of $22.9 million. The school sports budget is $600,000 (2.6%).

The Stoneham School Committee took a similar action in 2004, voting to eliminate the school sports programs, but sports were restored after parents raised funds to help defray the costs of the programs.

Is Stoneham a bellwether for other schools around the Commonwealth? So far, cities like Newton have continued to fund sports through user fees and overrides. But even in an affluent community like Newton, even as the city breaks ground on its new high school, debates fester about the costs --- and value -- associated with public schools and school sports.

Although only about 20% of the households in Newton have school-age children, it is recognized that having good schools makes Newton a more attractive place to live, increasing property values. However, this cuts both ways, as older residents on fixed incomes see their taxes climb steadily, with no way to continue living in their house while also benefiting from the increased value of their property. The issue creates an ugly divide between those who feel the schools are underfunded and those who feel that the school system is a budget monster prone to waste and spending on frivolous programs. The usual culprits are Art, Music, anything to do with politics or social issues, and yes, Sports.

The open struggle over how to pay for high school sports sharpens the contrast between the haves and the have-nots. The Globe article quotes several parents who are considering putting their kids in private schools so they can continue to play on teams during their high school years. Is the "pay-as-you-play" trend so severe that only the upper-middle class kids will be able to participate? Isn't there some greater good served by making sports available to everyone? And if so, how does a community find a way to pay for the value of that greater good?

I've always believed that there is a middle way between writing a blank check to the schools, and cutting them off without an extra penny. I believe that the key is to recognize that schools are -- in fact and in spirit -- inseparable from the larger community that makes them possible. As a consequence, school resources, including athletic resources, need to be conceived as serving everyone in the community, not just the few who play on the football team or run track. Take track as an example. A track is an expensive facility; why should it be in use only one-two hours a day for track team practices and meets? It should be seen as a community resource, serving senior citizens who want to walk in safety, adult fitness programs, summer recreational programs (see Waltham Track Club, Needham Youth Track Club), Special Olympics, special events (Walk for Life), etc. the concept is multiple use, and it needs to be built into the assumptions about the facility, before the first shovel hits the ground to begin construction.

The logic of "multiple use" applies, or could be made to apply, to other athletic resources as well. The school track team can raise money by putting on a community road race, or volunteer at summer track programs. They can help with maintenance of the park areas used for the cross-country course. I have seen all of these things happen, and the mutual goodwill between town and team that ensues.

Ultimately, residents of a city or town have the right to fund, or not fund, schools and sports. As costs rise, cuts are inevitable, and then the question is, "what has the greatest value to the community?" For HS sports to survive as an institution accessible to all, regardless of ability to pay, they must be perceived as having broad value, not as a luxury that benefits only a few.