# HERE’S A NEW WRINKLE



## Kicknit22 (Mar 11, 2019)

So, my daughter’s a junior in HS this year.  She played Varsity Soccer as a freshman and Sophomore, as well as Varsity Field Hockey her freshman year.  The rule when she entered HS, was that Varsity participation replaced a year of PE. She, as a freshman, also took PE as required. However, the school is now saying that a new rule is in place that doesn’t count the freshman and senior years participation in Varsity sports in place of PE.  This seems ridiculous. She is not allowed to play HS soccer due to DA this year, so it appears she’s being required to take 1 semester during her Senior year.  I would think that this “New” rule shouldn’t or wouldn’t apply to current students.  At least the juniors and seniors!  I don’t know? Thoughts anyone? Insight?


----------



## espola (Mar 11, 2019)

Kicknit22 said:


> So, my daughter’s a junior in HS this year.  She played Varsity Soccer as a freshman and Sophomore, as well as Varsity Field Hockey her freshman year.  The rule when she entered HS, was that Varsity participation replaced a year of PE. She, as a freshman, also took PE as required. However, the school is now saying that a new rule is in place that doesn’t count the freshman and senior years participation in Varsity sports in place of PE.  This seems ridiculous. She is not allowed to play HS soccer due to DA this year, so it appears she’s being required to take 1 semester during her Senior year.  I would think that this “New” rule shouldn’t or wouldn’t apply to current students.  At least the juniors and seniors!  I don’t know? Thoughts anyone? Insight?


Can you quote the rule here for us?


----------



## Kicknit22 (Mar 11, 2019)

espola said:


> Can you quote the rule here for us?


I wish I could.  I just got the information 2nd hand from my daughter today, after she had a meeting with her counselor.


----------



## espola (Mar 11, 2019)

Kicknit22 said:


> I wish I could.  I just got the information 2nd hand from my daughter today, after she had a meeting with her counselor.


If they can't write it down, they can't enforce it.


----------



## Kicknit22 (Mar 11, 2019)

I emailed the Assistant Principal earlier with a request for clarification. I just figured my peeps on the forum might be able to provide insight quicker than I’ll likely see a response to my email.


----------



## dani16 (Mar 11, 2019)

Graduation requirements remain the same as the date of HS entrance. So a district may change the overall requirements for graduation, but the requirements when the student enters 9th grade should remain the same.  The AP should relay this as well.


----------



## SPChamp1 (Mar 12, 2019)

Participation on a sports team regardless of Varsity or Junior Varsity should always count as fulfilling any PE requirements. 

I’ll admit that even with a child in HS now, I have never heard that JV sports wouldn’t meet the requirement.


----------



## Eagle33 (Mar 12, 2019)

Participation at Winter sport does not cover a year of PE requirement as far as I know.


----------



## NickName (Mar 12, 2019)

Early, bear with me.  Stupid time change

My kids school, students in soccer were told it covers the entire year of PE.  The district requires 2 years to graduate.  
Incoming freshmen were given a PE class until accepted onto a team. 
They practice from October thru the end of the season the end of Jan/beginning of Feb.

We got an email as the season ended stating (paraphrasing); “due to the fact that coaches will not be available to train students after then end of season play, all freshman and sophomores will be automatically enrolled in a PE class”

We’re weren’t at the school last year but according to some of the team that were freshmen, frosh and JV players did get a full year of PE credit with the same coaching circumstances.


----------



## SPChamp1 (Mar 12, 2019)

Eagle33 said:


> Participation at Winter sport does not cover a year of PE requirement as far as I know.


I wouldn’t think it covers a full year of the PE requirement, but there is no reason it shouldn’t fulfill a semester of it. Winter sports are generally November-Late Feb/Early March


----------



## Eagle33 (Mar 12, 2019)

SPChamp1 said:


> I wouldn’t think it covers a full year of the PE requirement, but there is no reason it shouldn’t fulfill a semester of it. Winter sports are generally November-Late Feb/Early March


I know in my school it does not. In order to cover a year of PE, students need to take 3 sports - Fall, Winter and Spring.
In case they are doing only 1 sport, they will need to take PE in place of other 2.


----------



## Eagle33 (Mar 12, 2019)

NickName said:


> Early, bear with me.  Stupid time change
> 
> My kids school, students in soccer were told it covers the entire year of PE.  The district requires 2 years to graduate.
> Incoming freshmen were given a PE class until accepted onto a team.
> ...


Pre-season and post-season of sport will normally count as full year, but not otherwise.


----------



## Dos Equis (Mar 12, 2019)

You might look into the option of independent study in PE, and whether your district allows that.  When I was on a club board, on more than one occasion, we filled out the documentation and accommodated players needs who used their club soccer to satisfy PE as an independent study.  Times have changed, schools have adjusted some policies in retaliation for the DA HS prohibition, so it may no longer apply.


----------



## espola (Mar 12, 2019)

Dos Equis said:


> You might look into the option of independent study in PE, and whether your district allows that.  When I was on a club board, on more than one occasion, we filled out the documentation and accommodated players needs who used their club soccer to satisfy PE as an independent study.  Times have changed, schools have adjusted some policies in retaliation for the DA HS prohibition, so it may no longer apply.


Retaliation?


----------



## Dos Equis (Mar 12, 2019)

espola said:


> Retaliation?


A policy of not letting DA athletes participate in signing day, when they are prohibited by their league from playing that sport in HS (as discussed on these forums), can be characterized as retaliatory.  I prefer foolish, but I figured I would get a response from you if I used that word.


----------



## Dubs (Mar 12, 2019)

Kicknit22 said:


> So, my daughter’s a junior in HS this year.  She played Varsity Soccer as a freshman and Sophomore, as well as Varsity Field Hockey her freshman year.  The rule when she entered HS, was that Varsity participation replaced a year of PE. She, as a freshman, also took PE as required. However, the school is now saying that a new rule is in place that doesn’t count the freshman and senior years participation in Varsity sports in place of PE.  This seems ridiculous. She is not allowed to play HS soccer due to DA this year, so it appears she’s being required to take 1 semester during her Senior year.  I would think that this “New” rule shouldn’t or wouldn’t apply to current students.  At least the juniors and seniors!  I don’t know? Thoughts anyone? Insight?


Get this... My daughter is a Sophomore and has been a 3 sport Varsity athlete for Soccer, Track and Cross Country since Freshman year.  Her HS doesn't give credit for any of this.  She's just now finishing up her PE requirement after 2 years of this BS.  AND, PE has all these intense requirements that involve writiting and analysis + if you miss any days, you must make up both physical and writing components!  Soooo stupid.


----------



## SBFDad (Mar 12, 2019)

Independent Study PE is the best option, as Two Xs said. But this can be a battle. Each district has their own rules on who can take it. For our district, if the sport is offered at the varsity level you cannot take ISPE. We were able to get my son in the program by showing proof that DA won’t allow athletes to play HS ball.

If you get push-back, maybe it’s time to march the issue up the chain of command. Superintendent. School board. 

If you decide to go to battle, go into this with the attitude “I just want to do what’s best for my kid. I want her to have to best opportunity for both academic and athletic success. Please help us do that.”


----------



## Eagle33 (Mar 12, 2019)

....and whats wrong with taking PE in school?


----------



## soccersc (Mar 12, 2019)

Kicknit22 said:


> So, my daughter’s a junior in HS this year.  She played Varsity Soccer as a freshman and Sophomore, as well as Varsity Field Hockey her freshman year.  The rule when she entered HS, was that Varsity participation replaced a year of PE. She, as a freshman, also took PE as required. However, the school is now saying that a new rule is in place that doesn’t count the freshman and senior years participation in Varsity sports in place of PE.  This seems ridiculous. She is not allowed to play HS soccer due to DA this year, so it appears she’s being required to take 1 semester during her Senior year.  I would think that this “New” rule shouldn’t or wouldn’t apply to current students.  At least the juniors and seniors!  I don’t know? Thoughts anyone? Insight?


Here's the ED Code for California allowing after school sports to allow exemption from PE..of course the school board would have to approve it, but it would have to be the same for every high school in your district
Under _EC _Section 51242, "The governing board of a school district may exempt any four-year or senior high school pupil from attending courses of physical education, if the pupil is engaged in a regular school-sponsored interscholastic athletic program carried on wholly or partially after regular school hours.”


----------



## outside! (Mar 12, 2019)

At my kid's school, basketball players get PE credit since the basketball coach is an accredited teacher, no other sports get PE credit.


----------



## outside! (Mar 12, 2019)

toucan said:


> Since we are ranting about the ridiculous rules for P.E., here is my take.
> 
> There should not be P.E. in school in the first place, nor school sports teams.  These programs cost a lot of money, but do not contribute to a student's academic training, which should be the only priority of a school's curriculum.   Probably 1/3 of most school premises is covered by athletic fields.  We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars building and maintaining those fields, not considering the value of the land.  We hire P.E. teachers, athletic coaches and support staff costing hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
> 
> School days are too long as it is, and the longer the day, the more diminished the academic return.  Our kids do not get close to the math, science and literature training they need.  We should focus on academics in school, and nothing else.


What about the studies that show that physical activity improves academic performance? Who said that high school is solely for academics? Some people believe the function for school is to prepare students for life, and there is more to life than academics. For many students extra-curricular activities (sports, music, etc.) are motivating factors that help them to remain in school.


----------



## forsomuch (Mar 12, 2019)

At my kids' school during season you are assigned to a PE class that is the sport. You get a grade in the class but each sport counts as a semester long class. For soccer you get assigned to second  semester and after the season you still have to go to "Soccer PE" until the end of the year. For Fall cross country, after the season you have to complete the 1st semester and go to "Cross country PE". These are real classes and take attendance each day, if you drop you don't get the credit for it.


----------



## John Akii-Bua (Mar 12, 2019)

toucan said:


> I don't really believe that you can show a direct correlation between physical activity and academic performance.  But even if you can, I suggest that "more focused academics" would be a far more reliable method of improving academic performance than adding "physical activity."
> 
> As far as school being a place to "prepare students for life," I agree that school does that to some extent, just because  because some subjects (economics, biology, math, reading) develop necessary life skills.  If you are talking about developing socialization, well, kids don't need a gigantic sports program to socialize; they just need to be around other kids, and they would be around lots of other kids in their classes and daily routine.  If you are talking about socialization coming from nonacademic pursuits, such as sports, scouting or cotillion, then those things should be done outside of school, and the public ought not have to pay for it.
> 
> Lastly, to your question about whether high school should be "solely for academics," I say "yes."  That is, after all, the historic function of an educational institution.  Unfortunately, school has become a kind of specialized day-care program for the masses.  Day-care is important.  But it should be paid for by parents; not the general public.  And academics should not be watered down to carry out this function.


wow, I can't believe someone else shares my disdain for HS athletics.

My position is that American high schools attempt to be the center of kids lives, and promote sports as the anchor of social life. Athletics then competes with and overtakes academic activity as the focal point of students and administrators, taking energy away from the school's core mission of academic instruction.

My wife grew up in a French educational system, where school was academic and the kids who were recognized as prominent and successful were the academic achievers. If kids did competitive athletics, it was on their own time. Seems way healthier to me.

I could tolerate some PE and intramural though. Given the overall fitness levels in this country, everyone should be exposed to some basic fitness and nutrition instruction.

Emphasis should be teaching everyone lifetime fitness, not creating athletic excellence.


----------



## outside! (Mar 12, 2019)

toucan said:


> I don't really believe that you can show a direct correlation between physical activity and academic performance.


From https://blog.schoolspecialty.com/physical-activity-affect-academic-performance/

The CDC states, “…physical activity can have an impact on cognitive skills and attitudes and academic behavior, all of which are important components of improved academic performance. These include enhanced concentration and attention as well as improved classroom behavior.”

https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/health_and_academics/pdf/pa-pe_paper.pdf


----------



## focomoso (Mar 12, 2019)

toucan said:


> Do you know what does improve alertness and academic performance? Nap time.


Also, starting school later in the day.


----------



## coachrefparent (Mar 12, 2019)

Kicknit22 said:


> So, my daughter’s a junior in HS this year.  She played Varsity Soccer as a freshman and Sophomore, as well as Varsity Field Hockey her freshman year.  The rule when she entered HS, was that Varsity participation replaced a year of PE. She, as a freshman, also took PE as required. However, the school is now saying that a new rule is in place that doesn’t count the freshman and senior years participation in Varsity sports in place of PE.  This seems ridiculous. She is not allowed to play HS soccer due to DA this year, so it appears she’s being required to take 1 semester during her Senior year.  I would think that this “New” rule shouldn’t or wouldn’t apply to current students.  At least the juniors and seniors!  I don’t know? Thoughts anyone? Insight?


What school/school district? Without this we are all just pissing into the wind.


----------



## Kicknit22 (Mar 13, 2019)

coachrefparent said:


> What school/school district? Without this we are all just pissing into the wind.


Sorry for slow response.  Grossmont Union HS District


----------



## DJB (Mar 18, 2019)

toucan said:


> Note the subjunctive mood: "physical activity can ..."
> 
> In other words, physical activity does not certainly correlate with improved academics.
> 
> Do you know what does improve alertness and academic performance? Nap time. I think it would be far more effective and much less costly if we incorporated an hour of sleep time into every school day than it is to send your kids out for PE.


What about the direct correlation between limited physical activity and obesity?  Pretty sure the costs of obesity and related heath issues are significantly higher than the cost of the athletic fields.  In addition, show me the direct correlation between high school academic training and "success" in life.  I will remind you that success is subjective per individual...


----------



## outside! (Mar 18, 2019)

toucan said:


> Note the subjunctive mood: "physical activity can ..."
> 
> In other words, physical activity does not certainly correlate with improved academics.
> 
> Do you know what does improve alertness and academic performance? Nap time. I think it would be far more effective and much less costly if we incorporated an hour of sleep time into every school day than it is to send your kids out for PE.


Did you read the CDC study? While they only found a moderate correlation between physical activity and increased academic performance, the found almost no negatives to increased physical activity. They also found that physical activity improves the academic environment in the classroom (i.e. better behavior).


----------



## Art (Mar 19, 2019)

This is a matter that depends on the district and not every district has the same requirements. My highschool actually had soccer as a sport class. Meaning, we wouldn't be taking P.E if we were enrolled in the class. It would be either a 6th or 7th period class. Two years of the class or 4 semesters worth would mean our PE requirement would be done. 

I don't know if it's the same for other schools. Some schools don't have the sport as a class from what I've heard. So, in conclusion you won't find a definite answer from this board. Wait for the principal's email, or get in touch directly with a counselor. Teens don't pass on the right message all the time lol.


----------



## focomoso (Mar 19, 2019)

toucan said:


> I'm 100% sure there is a link between limited physical activity and obesity.  But it is not a *school's* function to monitor or prevent obesity; that job belongs to parents.  A school's function is to educate children.   And that is it.  All the other stuff, like having a football team and a marching band, does not significantly contribute to the school's educational goals.  Those activities are rightly designated as "extra-curricular," because they serve little to no academic purpose.  While they may be fun and beneficial for their participants, the general public should not be paying for them.


Why should a school's function be limited to academics? Everyone needs physical, social, psychological and creative education in addition to academic and traditionally in the US, it has been the school that has filled all these functions. Why should the general public only pay for academic education and not the rest when it can be argued that it's "the rest" that causes the greatest problems in society today. 

If you look at private schools, they all try to develop "well-rounded individuals" which includes sports, the arts and social interaction. This is also what the prestigious colleges are looking for. 

Limiting schools just to academics does a disservice to the kids and to the community they'll be graduating into.


----------



## MWN (Mar 19, 2019)

toucan said:


> I'm 100% sure there is a link between limited physical activity and obesity.  But it is not a *school's* function to monitor or prevent obesity; that job belongs to parents.  A school's function is to educate children.   And that is it.  All the other stuff, like having a football team and a marching band, does not significantly contribute to the school's educational goals.  Those activities are rightly designated as "extra-curricular," because they serve little to no academic purpose.  While they may be fun and beneficial for their participants, the general public should not be paying for them.


Yes and no. In California we have a law that requires schools to provide a certain number of hours of "physical education" (_Education Code _§ 33352) for the various grades.  Throughout the education code are various mandates that require schools to provide physical education, for example: _Education Code _ § 51220 states that, "The adopted course of study for grades 7 to 12, inclusive, shall offer courses in the following areas of study: (d) *Physical education, with emphasis given to physical activities that are conducive to health and to vigor of body and mind*, as required by Section 51222."

_Education Code _§ 51222 states that (a) All pupils, except pupils excused or exempted pursuant to Section 51241, shall be required to attend upon the courses of physical education for a total period of time of not less than 400 minutes each 10 schooldays. Any pupil may be excused from physical education classes during one of grades 10, 11, or 12 for not to exceed 24 clock hours in order to participate in automobile driver training. Such pupil who is excused from physical education classes to enroll in driver training shall attend upon a minimum of 7,000 minutes of physical education instruction during such school year.

Pursuant to Section §33352, subd. (7), Physical education can be supplemented or replaced with extraciricular activies, such as, football, soccer and even marching band, at the election of the School Districts.  So, your statement above that I highlighted in red is incorrect according to the California Department of Education and California law.


----------



## MacDre (Mar 19, 2019)

toucan said:


> I agree that K-12 schools have been used for all sorts of reasons beyond academics, and a quick look at your list proves it.  You believe schools should be providing "physical, social and psychological" services to our children.  In my opinion, you are not describing an institution whose purpose is education.  You are describing an institution which supplants parents in the task of raising their children.  And that, in my opinion, is why a school's function should be limited to academics.  A public school should not take the place of parents, and we should not be paying billions of dollars so it can do so.
> 
> Now, I agree that private schools - in their efforts to develop "well-rounded individuals - include sports, arts and social activities.  If parents want to delegate those functions to private schools and pay the tuition associated with it, well, that's fine by me.  That is an individual economic choice made by parents.
> 
> But here, you are asking public schools to take over the role of parents for long periods of each day, and you want the general public to pay for it.  But many taxpayers do not have children, and many more have no children of school age.  While having an educated populace is a worthy endeavor that should be supported by all taxpayers, I cannot justify forcing the general public to pay for my daughter's cheer program, or your son's football program.


Can you reconcile your analysis with Howard Gardener and his research on “multiple intelligences?”


----------



## MWN (Mar 19, 2019)

toucan said:


> I accept that the Education Code says what you say it does, but I don't accept your argument.  Those  statutory requirements could be met with 40 minutes of walking, at nearly no cost.  They do not compel our school districts to pay billions of dollars for football teams, marching bands, and millions of acres of land, not to mention the coaches who train the teams.


The Education Code does not "compel," rather, its the parents in the district that "compel" the School District to support these programs, which are costs ultimately born by the Parents in the school district through their property and sales taxes.  I have a kid in Varsity Soccer and "had" (past tense) a kid in Sideline and Competition Cheer.  What I can tell you is that in my school district, the school subsidizes the cheer and soccer program solely through allowing the participants to play and practice on school property and paying the California state rate for the Varsity coach (around $4k to 5k per season if I recall correctly).  The uniforms, transportation, referee fees, tournament fees, assistant coach fees, equipment, etc., etc., are all paid for by the parents through what we call (in my district) a "fair share" donation.  This year, the soccer program had a number of parents opt to not pay the "fair share" donation ... so no buses for the boys.

Most schools are trying to offer a well-rounded experience for all.  They also appreciate that after-school "sports" like football, baseball, softball, gymnastics, soccer, lacrosse, cross-country, track and field, present many additional opportunities for their students to land scholarship dollars, which further supports the ultimate goal of the school/school district ... sending their kids off for higher education.


----------



## focomoso (Mar 19, 2019)

toucan said:


> I agree that K-12 schools have been used for all sorts of reasons beyond academics, and a quick look at your list proves it.  You believe schools should be providing "physical, social and psychological" services to our children.  In my opinion, you are not describing an institution whose purpose is education.


It just seems I have a broader definition of education than you.



> You are describing an institution which supplants parents in the task of raising their children.  And that, in my opinion, is why a school's function should be limited to academics.  A public school should not take the place of parents, and we should not be paying billions of dollars so it can do so.


But shouldn't parents also participate in teaching their kids academics as well? I know I do. I teach them proper grammar (because the schools don't do a great job at this) and my wife teaches them Polish. I teach them math and programming... Even if they were in the highest rated academic schools in the country, I'd still be teaching them academics. So are schools taking my place when they teach academics? This emphasis on academics seems arbitrary. 



> Now, I agree that private schools - in their efforts to develop "well-rounded individuals - include sports, arts and social activities.  If parents want to delegate those functions to private schools and pay the tuition associated with it, well, that's fine by me.  That is an individual economic choice made by parents.


But why do private schools do this? It's certainly not because the parents aren't involved in their kid's lives. It's not because the parents don't have the resources to cover these other activities... Private schools do this because they know well-rounded kids have better outcomes in life. Small class sizes, individualized learning, social engagement, public speaking, the arts, sports and even cheering (though, notice that very few private schools even have cheering...) all of these make "better" (or at least better prepared) adults. 

It's in our best interest (even those with out kids) to have engaged, well-rounded and, yes, smart kids entering adulthood. 



> But here, you are asking public schools to take over the role of parents for long periods of each day...


Half of the households in the US have two working parents. They don't have the luxury of providing all of these "extra curricular" activities to their kids.



> ...and you want the general public to pay for it.  But many taxpayers do not have children, and many more have no children of school age.  While having an educated populace is a worthy endeavor that should be supported by all taxpayers, I cannot justify forcing the general public to pay for my daughter's cheer program, or your son's football program.


Notice how public school districts in affluent neighborhoods work. They all have strong sports and arts and extracurricular activities. Why? It's still local tax dollars at work. People without kids are still paying the taxes to support them. So why do they do this? Because they want their kids to keep their affluence and they know that this is how it's done. Well-rounded kids contribute more to all of us than pure academicians.


----------



## focomoso (Mar 19, 2019)

toucan said:


> I don't think a reconciliation is necessary.  I don't doubt that his 8 categories of intelligence (yeah, I had to look that up), all contribute to a person's well-being to varying degrees.  The same could be said for prayer, shiatsu and good sex.  But we don't teach these things in school because at some level we all believe that its primary function is teaching academics to our children.


Can you at least concede from the reaction here that we don't _all_ believe this? I certainly don't. If I hadn't gone to a school that had a strong music program, I would never have discovered my "academic" forte.


----------



## MacDre (Mar 19, 2019)

toucan said:


> I don't think a reconciliation is necessary.  I don't doubt that his 8 categories of intelligence (yeah, I had to look that up), all contribute to a person's well-being to varying degrees.  The same could be said for prayer, shiatsu and good sex.  But we don't teach these things in school because at some level we all believe that its primary function is teaching academics to our children.


Yeah, but if your definition of academics is limited to the “3R’s”, you need to leave room for the possibility that your analysis is wrong.


----------



## Eagle33 (Mar 20, 2019)

toucan said:


> I agree that K-12 schools have been used for all sorts of reasons beyond academics, and a quick look at your list proves it.  You believe schools should be providing "physical, social and psychological" services to our children.  In my opinion, you are not describing an institution whose purpose is education.  You are describing an institution which supplants parents in the task of raising their children.  And that, in my opinion, is why a school's function should be limited to academics.  A public school should not take the place of parents, and we should not be paying billions of dollars so it can do so.
> 
> Now, I agree that private schools - in their efforts to develop "well-rounded individuals - include sports, arts and social activities.  If parents want to delegate those functions to private schools and pay the tuition associated with it, well, that's fine by me.  That is an individual economic choice made by parents.
> 
> But here, you are asking public schools to take over the role of parents for long periods of each day, and you want the general public to pay for it.  But many taxpayers do not have children, and many more have no children of school age.  While having an educated populace is a worthy endeavor that should be supported by all taxpayers, I cannot justify forcing the general public to pay for my daughter's cheer program, or your son's football program.


Why don't you run for President?


----------



## MWN (Mar 20, 2019)

toucan said:


> Besides the fact that I am singularly unqualified, I don't think getting a popular vote count of "1" would be enough to win.


In the U.S. we have the Electoral College which essentially nullifies the popular vote, so you still have a chance.


----------



## focomoso (Mar 22, 2019)

toucan said:


> How do you know you found your forte?  Maybe it was quantum physics or archeology, and the reason you did not find it is because your school had you spending time in your P.E. class instead of studying science or history.


I went to one of those well-rounded schools where we did everything. That's how I know. If I had not had that opportunity, if I had only done "academics", I would have been branded as "low performing" and never discovered a different path to success.


----------



## focomoso (Mar 22, 2019)

toucan said:


> I think public education is about "education" in its traditional sense, which I interpret as "academics."  I believe the public should pay for solid academic training.  As for the rest, I believe it is the parent's responsibility to pay for it.


I'm curious why you accept the need for public education at all? Drawing the line at academics seems arbitrary? Why not leave all education to the private sector? 



> True, many families cannot afford to pay for a lot of extra-curricular activities on their own dime.  That doesn't mean that the general public should be burdened with the responsibility.  A lot of families cannot afford a 3-bedroom house, a new Toyota, or Sirius XM - all of which would contribute to the benefit of their children.  But the public is not expected to pay these expenses.  Why should we be expected to pay for extra-curricular activities?


The difference here is that extra-curricular education _benefits_ the general public (as you just conceded above) where as fancy houses do not. It seems pretty straightforward that the public would want to pay for something that directly benefits it. What argument is there against it other than your personal conviction that it is "wrong"?


----------



## Keepermom2 (Mar 22, 2019)

In our district you get approval to opt out of PE starting in 6th grade if you can prove you are training 5 hours a week in Dance or as my District told me Academy/Travel Ball who generally have at least 4 practices a week.  My daughter loves PE so I won't take it from her yet nor can I as of now but, eventually I am going to want to do it so she has an extra hour to do school work during the school day since she will be spending so much time in activities.  

Extra curricular activities helps to keep kids out of the bad stuff generally speaking and I believe does help the community at large.  The better the districts are overall (includes satisfaction of what is offered) drives up property values helping all in the community.  

If you really want to talk about something that taxpayers don't know they are paying for.... $100k a year for Activities Directors at each high school (In our district that is the case).  That just burns me....this isn't a cruise ship.  We also have a "Wellness Counselor" too.  Considering she encouraged my daughter to lie to me, I am not all in on that one either.  There is a whole lot of wasted money in education but money spent in extra curricular activities isn't really one of them.


----------



## espola (Mar 22, 2019)

Keepermom2 said:


> In our district you get approval to opt out of PE starting in 6th grade if you can prove you are training 5 hours a week in Dance or as my District told me Academy/Travel Ball who generally have at least 4 practices a week.  My daughter loves PE so I won't take it from her yet nor can I as of now but, eventually I am going to want to do it so she has an extra hour to do school work during the school day since she will be spending so much time in activities.
> 
> Extra curricular activities helps to keep kids out of the bad stuff generally speaking and I believe does help the community at large.  The better the districts are overall (includes satisfaction of what is offered) drives up property values helping all in the community.
> 
> If you really want to talk about something that taxpayers don't know they are paying for.... $100k a year for Activities Directors at each high school (In our district that is the case).  That just burns me....this isn't a cruise ship.  We also have a "Wellness Counselor" too.  Considering she encouraged my daughter to lie to me, I am not all in on that one either.  There is a whole lot of wasted money in education but money spent in extra curricular activities isn't really one of them.


Lie about what?


----------



## Keepermom2 (Mar 22, 2019)

espola said:


> Lie about what?


The last name of a boy that didn't attend her high school...fortunately she chose not to lie to me.


----------



## BSMet94 (Mar 24, 2019)

toucan said:


> I agree that K-12 schools have been used for all sorts of reasons beyond academics, and a quick look at your list proves it.  You believe schools should be providing "physical, social and psychological" services to our children.  In my opinion, you are not describing an institution whose purpose is education.  You are describing an institution which supplants parents in the task of raising their children.  And that, in my opinion, is why a school's function should be limited to academics.  A public school should not take the place of parents, and we should not be paying billions of dollars so it can do so.
> 
> Now, I agree that private schools - in their efforts to develop "well-rounded individuals - include sports, arts and social activities.  If parents want to delegate those functions to private schools and pay the tuition associated with it, well, that's fine by me.  That is an individual economic choice made by parents.
> 
> But here, you are asking public schools to take over the role of parents for long periods of each day, and you want the general public to pay for it.  But many taxpayers do not have children, and many more have no children of school age.  While having an educated populace is a worthy endeavor that should be supported by all taxpayers, I cannot justify forcing the general public to pay for my daughter's cheer program, or your son's football program.


Easy solution for you:  home school your kids.


----------

