Nothing gets parents talking like discussing schools and athletics:
The Champaign school district needs to assert more control over how new sports programs are created and administered, say school board members.
The board on Monday night approved an exploratory baseball program for Edison Middle School students for the fall season – which began Monday – with the conditions that the program is evaluated by the district and the use of volunteer coaches complies with the district's teacher contract.
But several board members expressed concerns about how the program was established. Edison parents, Central High School baseball Coach John Staab and Edison Athletic Director Jackie Borchardt organized the program and raised money to cover its costs.
Board member Arlene Blank said the district needs to have more control over what booster clubs are doing.
Blank said the new baseball program raises many issues, including transportation, liability insurance, equity issues under federal Title IX legislation and who can collect gate receipts.
Discuss.
I'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't booster clubs financially independent of schools (and school-boards)? My pre-conceived notion of booster clubs is that they are volunteer groups, that run their own fundraising, and can choose to spend that money however they see fit...
Also, is anyone publically asking why a middle school would need an (official) baseball program, when there are a number of club teams and Little League organizations that already exist to fill that perceived need?
HG
If the booster club creates a team to play on school fields, and wear the school name, it becomes a school issue.
Why should the middle school have a baseball team? I can't believe they don't. I would think they would (and should) have track, softball, basketball, and volleyball. And maybe even soccer. Club teams are expensive - school programs would give poorer kids a better chance to participate. Plus, sports keeps those kids busy.
On August 14th, 2007 at 02:32 PM, redstatewannabe said: "If the booster club creates a team to play on school fields, and wear the school name, it becomes a school issue."
That sort of explanation is reasonable to me, and I would almost certainly agree with you: if a team is playing on school fields and under the schools name, then it's a school issue. My original question was prompted by this section of the article: "Board member Arlene Blank said the district needs to have more control over what booster clubs are doing."
Quick diverging question: is it possible for a club or little league team, not officially affliated or a part of the school, to essentially "rent" the practice and playing time from the school?
Why should the middle school have a baseball team? I can't believe they don't. I would think they would (and should) have track, softball, basketball, and volleyball. And maybe even soccer. Club teams are expensive - school programs would give poorer kids a better chance to participate. Plus, sports keeps those kids busy.
I guess my point would be that there are a number of non-school-related sports programs available, so there are a number of places for kids and parents wanting to participate, to participate. Course, I don't have kids (period), don't know anyone that does have kids in this age range, and I have no experience or knowledge of the costs for club team or little league participation. I guess I'm just wondering about the cost involved in this: if the same unit is talking about a long-term planning commission and the financial costs of maintaining or expanding the infrastructure and facilities of the unit, wouldn't a good idea be to control costs as much as possible? or am i just whistling dixie :-) ?
I wholeheartedly agree, that after-school programs (sports, theater, debate, quiz bowl, band, etc) are some of the best and most cost-effective ways of keeping kids engaged, interested, and providing good quality experiences for them...
HG
The district could have control over the sports programs if they would actually fund them. The parents/boosters have learned that if they want something, they need to provide it, which definitely leads to a case of the haves v. the have-nots. One example is the Central and Centennial baseball fields. The strongest example of the have v. the have-nots is when the Unit 4 kids go over to the Normal schools and there is no comparison. Acres of sports facilities, stall after stall in the restrooms, plenty of gym space, and the pool facilities are spectacular, plus the facilities are right there at their school. After school at Central, you have carloads of athletes rushing off to where they actually practice. More and more athletes are choosing to attend St. Thomas More.
Board member Arlene Blank said the district needs to have more control over what booster clubs are doing.
Why?
In all of this hubbub, did anyone ask why every school needs a stadium, a new gym, a new sport team, and of course, the necessary staff (coordinators, managers, 2 new Asst. Superintendents, etc etc etc)?
Heaven forbid we have volunteers working booster clubs!!! How does THAT grow the bureaucracy??!! How will THEY fill the pension funds?
How about this, provide the kids with enough of an education that they can compete in the job market. America used to be loaded with clubs, teams, sports, and (shock of shocks) citizen involvement!
Now we clamour for more services while complaining about property taxes. It's like a town hall meeting in Springfield (Simpsons version)
It doesn't have to be this way. Fund Children, not Districts.
Booster clubs do help teams out, but they aren't exactly the paragons of ethical decision making that you think they are. How do you think some of those coaching salaries are paid? The district provided stipend for coaches isn't that much, and many salaries are supplimented by booster clubs. Some of the "volunteer" assistant coaches (IE, the ones who aren't getting a stipend from Unit 4) are actually paid by the booster clubs. We're not talking obscenely large sums of money here, but certainly enough that a 1099 should be filed.
Because they've got a financial stake in the team, booster clubs also hold undue influence over how the team operates, which in turn causes problems between the coaches, administration, students and their families. I've seen it happen more than once, and booster parents have a tendancy (not all, but enough to note) to focus on putting the "athlete" ahead of the "student". Spend some time looking at how high school football is like a second church in Texas (and many small towns around here, for that matter), and you'll see that I'm not too far off-base here...
Also extrawise, there is only one "stadium" for Unit 4, along with only one pool and one well-maintained track. In this regard, Unit 4 has been fairly responsible in not duplicating facilities for the sake of having duplicate facilities. Granted, having a land-locked school forced their hand on the matter, but imagine how much more out of control finances would be if they were replicating the three most expensive to maintain athletic facilities at both schools...
Arvid,
I can imagine exactly what you are pointing out because "replicating" goes on all over the place.
As always, I merely try to point out (or ask the question) that things don't have to be this way. Sports are important, but they need not be attached to every school, with the broad spectrum of all sports for every school.
One of the reasons I'm so critical of the district model is that it is designed to radically duplicate, and therefore 'featherbed,' payroll. One district gets a new pool, and the parochialism and pride kick in all surrounding schools and districts. Soon, everybody needs a pool. Rinse and repeat, with the rich, suburban districts fomenting the spending and the poor districts fomenting the sense of envy and entitlement.
Driver's ed used to be a supplement for gym teachers, and now it is its own department, complete with the attendent adminstrators.
I think it is time we called into question the legitimacy of this model, from both a financial and curricular perspective.
This is not to disparage the many decent people in the system, but in all the overly complex discussions of 20 year plans, contract negotiations, board elections, and "keeping up with the New Triers," and totally meaningless 'funding formula' models, we have lost site of actaully educating the kids. Frankly, that is all I care about. Everything else is secondary, including teacher and administrator pay (which I believe should be tertiary, and not even secondary).
The US is right at or just over the $10,000/yr/child spending mark. (aggregate of all spending on public ed) Is there a single person here who doesn't know in their heart and head that if they were just given that $10,000 for each of their children, they wouldn't make much better decisions than a strongly self-interested bureaucracy?
From a curricular and financial perspective, America can't afford this education system, and all the arguments about building plans and booster clubs merely prove me right. We have lost sight of the real purpose of "education."
Booster clubs aren't in it for the long haul. They don't assume the risk of owning a facility nor do they asume the costs of maintaining a facility or upgrading it in the future. The booster clubs are filling in for the gaps in funding created when there isn't enough money to offer science classes AND soccer. I don't blame the school district for their reluctance to accept the product of volunteer (untrained) labor installing donated (second hand) lighting systems on a field that's too small.
I was the treasurer for the booster club of a local HS team, for 2 years. My spouse was the booster club president at another HS, and that booster club oversaw all sports. Booster clubs collect money from parents, and not a dime from schools. If some can't pay, they don't have to. Booster clubs pay for some equipment ("extra" balls, "decent" bats, some uniform items) and pay for awards, award banquets (usually fried chicken brought in) and some items for the maintenance of fields. Booster clubs build scorers tables, raise money for scoreboards, and sell pop and snacks at games. Booster clubs exist for two reasons. First, the schools just don't spend enough money, they don't have it. Just as supplementing a theater student with additional items for costumes, or helping to paint scenery, etc, booster clubs in sports help where the schools just can't, or won't. Second, booster clubs get parents more involved in the kid's high school experience, and with the high school itself. Booster clubs don't "rent" space to play, most schools and park districts let parents use facilities for practice, etc. The Little League uses fields that are school and park district, and there is no charge for that. Bottom line is: boosters clubs raise money independent of schools and spend that money as they see fit. The schools have no control, and should have no control, over booster club activities, unless it becomes an issue of the Booster Club doing something very wrong, which, fortunately, they rarely do. The schools should stay out of booster clubs or the volunteers will have to be replaced with employees, and the self raised funding would have to be made up somehow, if only a portion, causing money to be spent that might be better spent somewhere else, such as academics. Leave the Booster Clubs alone, Unit 4!
I think that there is probably a distinction that should be made between "booster clubs" in general, which exist to assist officially established and sanctioned school teams, and "club sports," which by definition are not official school teams and are not supported directly by the school. I'm not entirely certain, but it looks like the baseball program in question may be a club sport, which is an entire order of magnitude beyond a simple booster club. I think people may be confusing the two in this discussion. If I'm wrong about this, by all means please explain.