More and more, it's 'pay-to-play"

0 Comments | Oakland Tribune, Feb 2, 2009 | by Ross Priest

BAKERSFIELD -- If the Kern High School District wanted to scare the public last week, mission accomplished. But it wasn't the threat of cutting teachers that had the phone lines lit up. It was the thought of eliminating the entire KHSD athletic program.

This current budget crisis isn't just about athletic programs. The district faces a $20 million funding deficit in the next school year, according to the district.

Instead of the repetitive philosophy of saving money by slashing and burning programs that are already maimed or the threat of raising taxes, what if there was a way to keep those lower-level sports, and more important, keep educators?

There is a solution, but it comes with a price. And it won't be easy. As if anything is in California.

More and more athletic programs across the nation are turning to "pay-to-play" to address their budget shortfalls. Participation fees have become mandatory in some districts as the cost of running athletic and other extracurricular programs has increased.

It is not uncommon for parents to pay $75 to $100 for their child's participation in a sport or other co-curricular activity. At one Georgia high school district, student-athletes pay as much as $500 to play football.

As a means of defraying those expenses, fees sometimes are capped when a family has several children involved in sports.

Immediately, the idea of "pay-to-play" hit a snag when three Kern County athletic directors were interviewed, along with KHSD Support Services Director Mark Wyatt.

"If it came down to pay-to-play," North High athletic director Steve Faulk said, "I think there would be a lot of kids that would miss out on opportunities that every student should have a right to."

Faulk, who's worked in the district for more than 25 years, said some students attend school primarily for athletics. Garces High AD Vince Fanucchi and Liberty High AD Tim Davis agreed with that statement.

But the trio were intrigued by "pay-to-play" once the topic of low-income scholarships were discussed. One way to keep students from drifting away from schools would be to offer a waiver. A majority of the districts that utilize "pay-to-play" have scholarships available or waive fees if the student is eligible for financial aid.

Last year, 50.4 percent of KHSD students were eligible for the lunch program, according to district data.

That's an incredible number, but the fees could be increased to help cover the waivers or schools can have fundraisers to fill their respective coffers.

The actual cost of the activity fees, along with how to implement a "waiver" program, doesn't need to be concrete at this juncture. It's the idea of "pay-to-play" that needs to be discussed.

Whether or not the state can dig itself out of this economic hole shouldn't rest on just the shoulders of various athletic departments. KHSD should consider all extracurricular activities and turn "pay-to-play" into "pay-to-participate."

In a 2004 survey, conducted by USA Today, 34 of 50 states had school districts where pay-to-play existed. So maybe its time California takes a hard look at this program.

Unfortunately, it already has or at least something similar. As I mentioned earlier, this won't be easy. It will require overturning a 25-year California State Supreme Court ruling.

In 1984, the supreme court ruled that because extracurricular activities are "educational in character," public-school officials may not levy fees on students who participate in such activities. The ruling prohibits public schools from charging students to participate in extracurricular activities, yet schools continue to ask for "donations" to help pay for transportation costs or uniforms.

While the Supreme Court has had its say, it's time to re-think the slash and burn techniques of yesterday and find an innovative way out.

Unfortunately, it means putting it in the hands of the same folks who put us in this mess.