Planet Debate Sports Participation Update
Should Expand Middle School Sports
Download 309.72 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Sports Participation Benefits Women
- Pay to play sports activities disadvantage minorities in the college application process, opportunities to play sports should be considered part of an “adequate education.”
- Pay to play model disparately affects low income families and minorities
- Poor students won’t be able to benefit from athletics if they are only provided outside the classroom
- Students in poor areas cannot pay the fees
- Pay to play undermines discipline
- Pay to play sends a message that sports on the team can be bought
- Sports a critical part of the educational process
- Private sports programs deny equal opportunity
ProShould Expand Middle School SportsOpportunities to participate in middle school sports should be expandedDionne L. Koller, December 2010, Assistant Professor of Law and Director, Center for Sport and the Law, University of Baltimore School of Law, Connecticut Law Review, Not Just One of the Boys: A Post-Feminist Critique of Title IX's Vision for Gender Equity in Sports, p. 453-4 In addition to considering a greater range of models for education-based sport, we must develop a policy that includes more choices for sport participation in the elementary and middle school years. This is important for several reasons. First, more choices through schools in earlier years will help eliminate socio-economic barriers to sport participation. In addition, more education-based sport in elementary and middle school settings will reinforce a norm of participation from the bottom up, instead of relying on inspiration in the form of elite college and Olympic athletes to drive interest from the top down. Moreover, more athletic participation in elementary and middle schools will provide more opportunities for women to be involved in charting a direction for education-based sports. Perhaps more than anything, allowing women to administer athletic programs and coach athletes, both male and female, is enormously important and has ramifications well beyond the individual woman who holds the position. It is administrators and coaches who define which athletes will have access to athletic resources and what those athletes will have to do to continue having access. It is those administrators who set the agenda for how athletics will fit into the educational structure of the institution. After Title IX, women athletic leaders largely were sidelined by men in sports leadership positions. Indeed, it has been explained that one result of Title IX is that "most women's athletic programs are now governed by the NCAA, where control is largely in the hands of men." Also, since Title IX was enacted, the proportion of women athletic administrators and coaches has declined in both high schools and universities, and women continue to be excluded from most positions of power and influence in education-based sports contexts. Accordingly, increasing women's voices in athletics must not rely simply on an approach whereby we increase the numbers of women who participate in sport. Efforts must also be made to increase the numbers of women who administer sport programs and coach female (and male) athletes, so that women's voices are injected from the top down as well. More opportunities at the elementary and middle school levels will also provide a means for integrating sports teams. Indeed, it is hard to imagine women's voices becoming equally valued in structuring the way in which athletics is conducted in the educational setting given that through segregated teams, men still enjoy the privilege of setting the standard for how sport should be. That is, by maintaining their separate teams, men maintain their dominance over the model of sport offered, because it is they who set the definition of what a student-athlete is, and it is acknowledged that women cannot compete with them, for the standards are set to reward male physical dominance. Traditional arguments in favor of the separate teams philosophy is that for women to have a chance to make teams (and play safely), they must be given their own teams because men, due to their size and strength advantages, will always dominate sports teams. Such arguments are based on the unstated assumption that athletics has as its purpose elite-level performance and an emphasis on competition instead of participation. Because concerns over size and strength advantages of males over females are not as immediate, if they are present at all, in younger children, gender integration of sports teams at these levels can be used as a means to further erode the standard of male supremacy and the male performance norm in sports. Moreover, institutions could be mandated to structure their teams based on levels of play, size, or age, instead of using gender as a proxy for size and ability. Sports Participation Benefits WomenSports participation benefits women economically throughout their livesDionne L. Koller, December 2010, Assistant Professor of Law and Director, Center for Sport and the Law, University of Baltimore School of Law, Connecticut Law Review, Not Just One of the Boys: A Post-Feminist Critique of Title IX's Vision for Gender Equity in Sports, p. 414-5 Sports participation also provides social benefits that are carried throughout life, n61 including a woman's professional life. Studies have shown that girls' participation in sport had a powerful impact on women's education and employment, with sport participation accounting for twenty percent of the increase in women's education and forty percent of the increase in women's employment for women twenty-five to thirty-four years old. Moreover, some studies have shown that girls' sport participation led to a lower risk of obesity twenty to twenty-five years later. Given the growing numbers of children, and especially girls, who are overweight and suffering the lifelong physical and emotional effects, equal opportunity to participate in sport-both encouraging an interest in it and sustaining it-is an important public policy issue.
Pay to Play Model BadPay to play sports activities disadvantage minorities in the college application process, opportunities to play sports should be considered part of an “adequate education.”Micah Bucy, 2013, J.D. Candidate, 2014, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class, THE COSTS OF THE PAY--TO--PLAY MODEL IN HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETICS, p. 278-80 The importance of obtaining a college education has perhaps never been higher, yet the accessibility of college has diminished. n1 Tuition seems to increase every year, n2 interest rates for student loans have increased recently, and application fees have increased. n4 Now even building a quality college application may be costly. There is a growing trend among school districts to charge a fee for a student to participate in extracurricular activities. These fees, commonly referred to as "pay-to-play" fees, can range from $ 20 for a school year to upwards of $ 1,000 per sport. Some people may not find the idea of paying $ 1,000 for their child to play a school sport appalling, but low-income families, and specifically minorities, are forced to forego participation in extracurricular activities because of the expense. Because top colleges seek to enroll the most diverse and well-rounded freshmen class possible, minority and low-income students who do not participate in these activities are at an unjustifiable disadvantage when it comes to applying for college. n The pay-to-play model is a reactionary tool to combat tightening school budgets. In the midst of this education budget crisis, some districts laid off teachers, shortened the school day, n8 shortened the school week, and/or ended after school study programs. But these are extreme measures. Other districts tried cutting extracurriculars or implementing the pay-to-play model. Those in support of the model assert that since money is tight, schools need to prioritize required programs and cut the rest. The position embedded in this argument is taxpayer unwillingness to increase resources for education by raising taxes. This comment seeks to critique the pay-to-play model and to argue for its elimination because of its disparate effects on racial minorities and low-income families. I propose, given the importance of a college education, and the fact that extracurricular activities are important to crafting a well-rounded college application, that extracurriculars be considered a part of an "adequate education." To give a complete picture of the education crisis, Part I examines both the federal and state roles in funding public education. Part II focuses on the importance of an education and examines whether education is a right, and, if so, how far that right extends. Part III examines the pay-to-play model and then explores its consequences and disparate effects based along class and racial lines. In Part IV, I assert that education is so important and the pay-to-play model creates such bright-line divisions based on race and class that states should include extracurriculars as part of an "adequate education."
Micah Bucy, 2013, J.D. Candidate, 2014, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class, THE COSTS OF THE PAY--TO--PLAY MODEL IN HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETICS, p. 297-8 The Pay-to-Play Model Disparately Affects Low Income Families and Minorities
1. Inequities, the Pay-to-Play Model, and Low Income Families The pay-to-play model creates inequities based on income level because it constructs barriers to opportunities. The Mott Report found a correlation between participation in school athletics and household income. Only one-third of lower-income families have a child participating sports, whereas more than half of higher income families have a child participating. This suggests that participation fees can be the barrier between a student participating and not. And the Mott Report found that nineteen percent of families earning less than $ 60,000 curtailed their child from participating compared to just five percent for families making more than $ 60,000. This means that students from low-income families are nearly four times more likely than students from affluent families to be prohibited from the benefits of school athletics as discussed in Part III.A. The inequity that exists for individual families can be extrapolated so as to see the inequities on a district-wide scale. Every family is different; some prioritize one thing over another. As the Mott Report implies, some lower-income families must place a higher emphasis on participation in school sports than others because not every family is stopping their child from participating. But if enough students in a given district are unable to participate in a particular sport because of the associated fees, or for any other reason, this may then prompt the district to eliminate the sport altogether. For instance, school districts may not want to continue to budget for a basketball team that consistenly has only six players. In this sense, the model has the effect of threatening those students who can afford to pay the participation fee from participating and thus restrict their access to the benefits and opportunities that accompany high school athletics. Beyond the consequences the model creates for lower income college applicants, the other benefits that accompany participation in school athletics are diminished as well. Families, regardless of income level, that pay these participation fees likely do so with some expectations. For instance, parents who pay the fee probably expect that their student-athlete will get playing time and not be confined to the bench for the whole season. These expectations produce pressure for the coach to monitor playing time and ensure that every athlete receives the same playing time. This simultaneously creates the impression in a student-athlete that he or she can simply buy his or her way onto a team. This unintended consequence of creating an entitlement mentality undermines some of the most valuable lessons of athletics - determination, hard work, and perseverance are necessary for success. 2. The Inequities of the Model Simultaneously Affect Racial Minorities Because Low-Income Families are Primarily Comprised of Racial Minorities The pay-to-play model creates inequities based on race because there is a strong correlation between low-income and racial minorities. The correlation between low-income and racial minorities can be seen through the population make up of cities as opposed to suburbs. For example in Baltimore, Maryland, the median income is $ 39,000, and the population is comprised of about seventy percent of racial minorities. While in Montgomery County, a suburb of Washington, D.C., the median income is more than $ 94,000 and has a much more homogenous racial makeup with minorities making up about fifty percent. The school populations reflect a comparable population demographic. For instance in the Baltimore City School District, minority students outnumber white students at a rate of almost four-to-one. In the Montgomery County School District, the racial makeup is vastly different as white students outnumber minority students at a rate of nearly two-to-one. The difference is significant because an intensely segregated African American or Latino School is fourteen times more likely to be a high poverty district than other schools. And urban (minority) children, like those enrolled in the Baltimore City School District, are four times more likely to attend a poor school than are suburban children. So when schools implement the pay-to-play model, it is not only four times more likely to deter low-income families but also racial minorities at a similar rate. Poor students won’t be able to benefit from athletics if they are only provided outside the classroomCassie Merkel, 2013, J.D. Candidate, Seton Hall University School of Law, 2013, Seaton Hall, Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law, Misspent Money: How Inequities in Athletic Funding in New Jersey Public Schools May Be the Key to Underperformance, p. 400 Unfortunately, studies in the United Kingdom established that children living in poverty are less likely to experience education outside of the classroom. Low-income families are shown to spend more of their resources on the basic necessities and have less income for outside learning experiences or resources. Additionally, as these families have fewer resources than middle class families to put towards "adequate social and academic participation," children within these families face a greater chance of exclusion from such activities. Success in life is based heavily around knowing how to develop and sustain relationships with others. As after-school activities are centered on constructing social behavior, including forming these multi-group membership bonds, a cycle of deprivation could be created if children who live in poverty are not given these opportunities to learn how to form professional bonds with others. Because learning is often a lower priority within low-income families who are forced to focus on providing the basics for their children, children need incentives and aid from outside sources for education. Scholars argue that the opportunity for college scholarships is highlights the importance of athletics in low-income neighborhoods. Whether or not a student will actually have the skill to earn a college scholarship is irrelevant; an athlete who cannot develop his skills and participate in competition at the high school varsity level will normally not have the opportunity to obtain a college athletic scholarship or gain entry into a lucrative professional athletic career. The lack of incentive leaves schools with different levels of athletic programming and, in return, grave disparities for these types of opportunities.
Kate I. Rausch, 2006, Pay-to-play: A Risky and Largely Unregulated Solution to Save High School Athletic Programs from Elimination, p. 601 A major problem with pay-to-play solutions and a source of equity issues is that fee-based programs do not work well in every school. Pay-to-play programs thrive in affluent communities because enough students are able to pay the fees to enable the schools to field teams. In poorer areas, however, pay-to-play programs are not a viable option because few students can afford to pay the fees. Urban district administrators express concern that imposing fees may cause students to forego participating in school activities and head to the streets after school. Even in communities where pay-to-play programs generally fund athletics successfully, fees limit participation. The Michigan High School Athletic Association's study of 558 Michigan High Schools revealed that fees up to $ 100 cause a ten percent decrease in participation, while fees up to $ 200 affect a twenty percent decline. Participation rates and affluence of the district correlate and accordingly, participation rates in affluent districts have remained high despite the fees. Decreases in participation occur more frequently, however, among multi-sport athletes who choose to play only one sport and among younger siblings who sit out while their older sibling plays. Pay to play undermines disciplineKate I. Rausch, 2006, Pay-to-play: A Risky and Largely Unregulated Solution to Save High School Athletic Programs from Elimination, p. 601-2 Another concern associated with pay-to-play programs is the potential for parents to involve themselves with the amount of their child's playing time. If all students pay the same fee, parents may be upset to see their children sit on the bench while other children play. Similarly, coaches may hesitate to suspend or dismiss students who have already paid for the privilege to pay, thereby compromising their disciplinary abilities.
Kate I. Rausch, 2006, Pay-to-play: A Risky and Largely Unregulated Solution to Save High School Athletic Programs from Elimination, p. 602 Beyond the various logistical problems that implementing pay-to-play programs present, many administrators and coaches oppose fees on philosophical grounds. They contend that pay-to-play solutions send the alarming message to students that they can now buy coveted spots on varsity teams, once earned through hard work and talent. Not surprisingly, some coaches have defected from schools implementing pay-to-play programs citing philosophical objections to the practice.
Kate I. Rausch, 2006, Pay-to-play: A Risky and Largely Unregulated Solution to Save High School Athletic Programs from Elimination, p. 606-7 Moreover, notwithstanding the Paulson court's interpretation of the term "extra," there is strong support for the notion that extra-curricular activities, including sports, are not supplemental to education. While Hartzell is the only decision to address sports fees, courts have generally recognized extra-curricular activities as "fundamental ingredients of the educational process." Educators across the country agree that sports and extra-curricular activities do not supplement, but rather, complete an education. For example, there exists a strong correlation between academic achievement and participation in sports and extra-curricular activities. Sports foster teamwork, leadership, self-esteem, school spirit and pride in community. These benefits not only explain why athletes tend to perform better academically, but they also link education to good citizenship and preservation of democracy. Additionally, while only a small percentage of high school athletes earn college athletic scholarships, for some students, high school athletics provide an incentive for them to come to school. While sports do not outweigh the value of academics, the line between the two is becoming blurred and the end of the school day no longer delineates where education stops and recreation begins. Although the holding in Hartzell did not successfully maintain the vitality of free extra-curricular activities in California, the court's position that extra-curricular activities should not be "contingent upon the fluctuating financial health of local school districts" remains sound. Financial realities, however, demonstrate that there is not enough funding for every valuable program. Between cutting teachers or athletics, a minimal basic education requires the former, but can exist without the latter. Even so, the problems associated with pay-to-play programs far outweigh their utility and make them an impractical solution to financial woes. Private sports programs deny equal opportunityDouglas E. Abrams, 2002, Associate Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law, ARTICLE: THE CHALLENGE FACING PARENTS AND COACHES IN YOUTH SPORTS: ASSURING CHILDREN FUN AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, Villanova Sports and Entertainment Law Journal, p. 283-4 In organized youth sports, equal opportunity is intimately related to fun, not only because children know when adults are shortchanging them, but also because inequality frustrates or excludes many children who want to play. Equal opportunity in youth sports is neither difficult nor impossible to achieve. Most parents and coaches know equal athletic opportunity when they see it, and when they work energetically to defeat it. At the core, "equal opportunity" means that a youth sports program should enroll each boy and girl who wishes to enroll, and should assure each youngster full and fair participation in every practice session and game. No child should be cut or made uncomfortable for wanting to play, regardless of ability. The program should tolerate a waiting list only as an absolute last resort, and should maintain unavoidable waiting lists on a first-come, first-served basis without favoring particular children based on ability or family circumstance. No waiting list should be tolerated where careful scheduling, such as modest reductions in practice and game time for teams and players already enrolled, would create room for new teams rather than leave some children behind. "Equal opportunity" also means enabling each child, to the extent possible, to play with children of roughly the same ability level. Children with five years' experience, for example, would be better off not playing against beginners, and beginners would be better off not playing against seasoned veterans. Experienced players may become bored, beginners may become intimidated or embarrassed and wide disparities of talent increase risk of injury, particularly in contact or collision sports. Where a program maintains "travel" teams for the more experienced youngsters, it should also maintain a "house" league if sufficient interest warrants. With several teams engaging in local play, vibrant house leagues permit broad participation by enabling less experienced children to have fun, develop skills and maintain self-esteem before moving to a higher level if they wish. In larger communities where a few programs conduct house leagues at roughly the same ability level and within convenient driving distance of one another, a program can offer its house leaguers a taste of travel competition by scheduling a few games against teams from other house leagues. "Equal opportunity" also means that every child should receive a fair amount of playing time each game. Modest disparity throughout an entire game may be unavoidable and can largely be made up at the next game, but chronic benchwarming is a public humiliation that leads some children to drop out. Fair-minded coaches know the difference between modest disparity and chronic benchwarming, and no coach assigns chronic benchwarmers by accident. Rules assuring only minimal participation, such as ones guaranteeing each youngster only two innings and one at-bat in a seven-inning baseball game, are shams when coaches can get away with giving the same players the short end of the stick game after game. When all is said and done, "equal opportunity" means viewing community youth sports programs as a pyramid. The strongest part of a pyramid is at the middle and bottom, not the top. Elite teams have a role in older age groups because youngsters, including the relatively few players at the top of the pyramid, deserve opportunities to compete at their own ability level once they have mastered the basics. For most of these top players, elite teams provide their last chance to pursue excellence in organized sports because the collegiate and professional ranks will be out of reach. Most youngsters, however, are not "elite" players and never will be. In any community, the "elite" cannot realistically include more than about 20% of youngsters who play a particular sport. A community fails its youth unless the community's sports programs offer meaningful participation to the remaining 80% lower on the pyramid, including the least experienced youngsters at the bottom. Regardless of their lofty rhetoric, however, most private youth sports programs reject "equal opportunity" because the adults in control want no part of it. Programs conducted by parks and recreation departments or other public agencies can mandate equal opportunity, but most private programs are conducted by "short termers," parents and coaches who know they will be involved for only a few years while their own children are involved. With brief tenure assured at the outset, many adults in control cannot resist temptation to take what they can for their own children and their teams, even when they know their selfishness means depriving other youngsters. [*285] Many private programs defeat equal opportunity by making unnecessary cuts or maintaining avoidable waiting lists so they can pursue victory by lavishing extra practice and game time on the most talented youngsters. Many coaches take the easy way out, forming "select" teams so they can win immediately without having to work patiently with less talented youngsters unable to produce quick victory. Other coaches belittle minimum-participation rules as a petty annoyance to be evaded whenever benching some players may pay off on the scoreboard. In many private programs, it is no secret that winning a position on the board of directors is the easiest way to bypass tryouts and assure prime playing time for your child. Board members vote to appoint coaches of the most desirable teams, who will be smart enough to remember that board members who voted them in this year can vote them out next year. Subtle pressures help explain why even with modest talent, board members' children and their friends so often happen to get selected for the most desirable teams and seldom need a seat on the bench. With equitable private sports programs the exception rather than the rule, public officials frequently make matters worse. Most private youth sports programs do not own their own fields, gyms or other facilities; they use public facilities under license agreements with the school district, parks department or other public agency. The licenses often come at favorable rates or even free, on the rationale that the program performs a valuable public service by conducting a wholesome youth activity. When they allocate scarce field and gymnasium time, officials often give priority to "elite" programs that maintain avoidable waiting lists, or that cut or wait-list large numbers of youngsters and then tolerate coaches who assign chronic benchwarmers. Programs open to all youngsters are often forced to settle for whatever facilities and inconvenient time slots are left because these inclusive programs cannot showcase the community's best players, command headlines or conduct tournaments and travel teams that generate revenue for hotels, restaurants and other local businesses. In many communities, the unyielding demand for scarce athletic facilities assures that very little is left over. Where public facilities are scarce, officials must give first priority to programs that pledge to permit all interested youngsters to play. These programs must be assured access to facilities sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of all children, and access must be provided during convenient hours unlikely to discourage broad participation. Taxpayers should insist that each youth sports program seeking to use public facilities file an annual application and a "child impact statement," stating the number of children who sought to enroll the prior year, the number the program enrolled and allowed to participate and the program's written policy for assuring each child fair participation in each practice session and game. Authorities reviewing applications should be alert for complaints that a program fails to practice what its written policy preaches. To determine whether a sports program truly serves the community's youth, officials charged with assigning public facilities need to ask only one question: "How does the program treat its least talented player?" Adults conducting many private programs could not give an honest answer with a straight face. Taxpayers should remain vigilant, speaking at city council and school board meetings to challenge these elected officials to act for the greater good whenever it appears that assignment of public facilities may shortchange inclusive community programs. These programs must receive their fair share because the only other major provider of youth sports, the school district, excludes too many youngsters who wish to play.
Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 309.72 Kb. Share with your friends:
|