Results 1 to 15 of 87

Thread: (Appropriately) valuing co-curricular activities

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Wayland MA


    John, when I challenged your notion that the schools ignore overrides in the context of our ~$30M budget, you trotted out the exaggerated cases of $65M and $2M.

    When writing about an elementary school foreign language program, you floated the exaggerated five years or "tomorrow" as the time that it might take to put one in place.

    When commenting on my support for ski lift tickets to allow our racers to practice (the ski team numbered 43 athletes in FY2007, 12th most out of 25 teams at the HS), you went "what next?" with exaggerated scuba trips to the Galapogos or art trips to the Louvre.

    I'm curious, why the need to exaggerate everything in order to attempt to make a point?

    It's clear that we disagree on the funding of co-curricular activities. I think that the fee burden is already too high. If I understand you correctly, you'd like to add fees to all sports so that the publicly funded cost per athlete is no more than the ~$250 per ski racer that the public will be funding next year. For the record, that would increase fees from ~$10 to ~$650 per athlete on 18 of the 25 sports, ranging from girls soccer to football to girls basketball to swimming.

    John, you and I are old news on this topic. I'd be interested to hear what others have to say (especially those who have had children go to or through the HS; this thread has had almost 800 views--surely someone else has an opinion!): are athletic fees too low, too high, or just right?
    Last edited by Jeff Dieffenbach; 05-31-2008 at 06:32 PM. Reason: Addition parenthetical remark in last sentence.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts