High School Athletics: Where Budget Balancers Fear to Tread?

By Morgan Smith

With Texas public schools facing cuts of as much as $10 billion in state funding, predictions of the consequences have been dire: teacher layoffs in the six figures, bigger class sizes, fewer instructional days, slashed support for at-risk students. One topic conspicuously absent from the conversation: athletics. Are lawmakers and school boards fearful of treading on the hallowed turf of high school football?

Perhaps, but the unhappy answer, at least for gridiron lovers, is that nothing is safe — not even sports in the land of Taj Mahal stadiums. And despite the spendthrift reputation of Texas high school football programs, districts have less money to save in eliminating them than you might think.

That’s because of the way the state structures athletics programs in public schools. In Texas, a recently changed law allows students who play an after-school sport to receive class credit for practicing during school hours. If kids are occupied during the school day with an athletic period and a district decides to eliminate the sport they play, they still must go somewhere — and that means using up additional resources finding extra classrooms and teachers.

"You take 100 kids and instead of one coach you have four teachers, because you've only got a class size of about 24 or 28, so you don't save much money by eliminating the sport if you still have kids in the program," says Tim Carroll, spokesman for Allen Independent School District, a northern exurb of Dallas.

Defenders of public school athletics also point out that coaching is rarely a full-time job. Many coaches, if they aren’t employed in the administrative role of athletic directors, are also teachers. They receive stipends, usually a few thousand dollars a year, to compensate for the extra time they spend outside of the classroom with their teams. Doing away with or reducing the extra money teachers receive for time spent coaching — and running other activities like yearbook, band and art — is likely as schools look at what they can and can’t afford, says Gwendolyn Santiago, the executive director of the Texas Association of School Business Officials.

According to data from the Texas Education Agency, in the 2009-10 school year, about 2.4 percent of districts’ general operating expenses were spent on extracurricular activities, including athletics. That comes out to about $157 per student. In comparison, districts spent $787 per student on academic support programs for underachieving children and $274 per student spent on bilingual and ESL education.

In San Antonio’s Northside ISD, the state’s fourth largest district, Athletics Director Stan Laing says his department has already cut 8 percent of its budget to get through the remainder of the school year. For next year, the district may cut back on travel and equipment expenses and, yes, stipends. But Laing says the district will investigate how it could generate more revenue through sporting events, and he says that money isn’t necessarily poured back into athletics.

“All that money — it doesn't come back to athletics. It goes into the general fund, and then obviously those monies are used where needed anywhere in the district,” he says. That's typical in districts across the state.

Charging students fees for equipment and uniforms and getting rid of sports programs with limited participation are other options for districts. But schools will have to waive those fees for students who can’t afford them — not a small consideration in Texas, where almost 60 percent of students qualify as economically disadvantaged.

As for eliminating programs, schools will have to be very careful to make sure they don’t violate Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex educational programs and activities, including sports. When schools make broad funding reductions across sports programs, they need to ensure that they aren’t creating inequalities or exacerbating existing ones between the sexes, says Neena Chaudhry, a lawyer who handles Title IX issues with the National Women’s Law Center, or else they may find themselves with a lawsuit on their hands — like Florida did in 2009, when parents sued after the state high school sports association reduced the number of games scheduled for all sports except football. Their case has since been settled out of court.

“If you make cuts across the board, in many districts it's still a problem because girls are starting at a disadvantage,” she says.

If schools are tempted to insulate football from the budget crisis, it’s because the sport is one of the few, and in many cases only, that brings in money for districts through sales of tickets to games, sponsorships and concessions. That can be enough revenue to sustain it and other programs, according to Santiago. And though palatial stadiums like the $60 million one Allen ISD recently began building contribute to the perception that schools are overspending on sports programs, they are financed through bond initiatives, separate from the money districts must divvy up among programs each year. (Allen’s was part of a $120 million package that passed 63 percent to 37 percent in 2009.)

Districts won’t know how the budget cuts will hit them or how badly until the end of the legislative session. But if they go as deep as $10 billion, it’s likely no program will escape unscathed. “If the Legislature adopted the initial figures from the House, then all programs would be under scrutiny,” says Kelli Durham, a spokeswoman for Cypress-Fairbanks ISD in Harris County, the third largest district in the state. “Because it would take more than eliminating one program to make the cuts.”

It’s a refrain parents, teachers and students are hearing across the state — and an unpleasant forecast of the future.

Gerard Hetman Commentary: Cut high school sports funding? Don’t overlook benefits.

By Gerard Hetman

WHAT BETTER thing for kids to do with their “spare” time than after-school athletics?

That’s the question I ask as I read about people urging area school districts to cut middle school and high school sports funding in the face of budget shortfalls.

As of this writing, talks about cutting back on sports funding are ongoing in the Pittston Area and Hazleton Area school districts. As other districts seek to shape their budgets, similar discussions surely will pop up.

When talk turns to slashing costs, sports is frequently the first item on the agenda. For some parents, athletics represent an investment in programs from which their kids will never benefit, and that only a small percentage of students enjoy. It’s always the same rallying cry: Privatize high school sports! If kids want to play, make their parents pay!

But let’s back up a second. Have these critics ever stopped to think of the many children and adolescents who benefit from interscholastic sports programs?

According to the National Federation of State High School Associations, 7,628,377 high school students participated in interscholastic athletics during the 2009-2010 school year. Compared with other states, Pennsylvania ranks sixth in terms of total number of high school student-athletes, with 317,456 boys and girls, behind only Texas, California, New York, Illinois and Ohio.

What I see in those numbers are hundreds of thousands of young people involved in an activity that builds character, teaches discipline and commitment, and promotes physical fitness. In my book, those are the kinds of lessons that our schools should be teaching, and that you can’t always learn in a classroom.

Sure, you can say that if parents want their students to participate in sports, they should be financing the endeavor. But I would argue that the funds provided by school districts for sports are a worthwhile investment.

As an example, I point to my best friend, who I will call C.J. Through his participation in sports in high school, C.J. was well-prepared to follow his dream of becoming a Pennsylvania state policeman. As I write this commentary, I know that he is out on patrol with fellow troopers across the commonwealth, making sure we have a safe and peaceful place in which to live and work.

There are certainly many other elements that have gone into C.J.’s success over the years, but participation in sports was a big part of it. And certainly not everyone who participates in sports is guaranteed to develop into a productive citizen. Sadly, some of our former teammates might wind up on the wrong end of C.J.’s job in the years to come.

But, as I see it, the positive aspects that students have the chance to gain from sports far outweigh the negatives.

While some teenagers are harassing pedestrians on Wilkes-Barre’s Public Square, smoking cigarettes or getting involved in more troubling activities, high school sports serve as a way for students to channel their energy productively. They teach teamwork. They promote school spirit. And they help kids attain physical fitness goals that promote healthy living.

I’m not saying that high school sports should be exempt from possible cuts. In fact, there are many areas of cost-savings that can be explored when it comes to athletics. But I am bothered when parents and students point at the athletics program as a whole and view it as a big, fat target.

After all, the all-too-common alternative is for students to hang out on the corner, right?

High School Athletic Directors Brainstorm Alternative Funding Methods

By Stephanie Loh, The Patriot News

There is no need to panic – Midstate athletic directors say they will do everything in their power to trim budgets without cutting sports programs. And at the Pennsylvania State Athletic Directors Association conference last week, they brainstormed ways to do so.

"We are looking at ways to slash budgets, and the thing people have to understand is that in a school budget, the most impact athletics might have on a budget is maybe 1.5 percent," Hershey athletic director Sam Elias said. "When schools are have 50 to 60 percent of a student body participating in sports and it's costing the community 1.5 percent, that's a very good return."

Still, PSASA Executive Director Bob Buckanavage says it's become evident that high school athletic departments can no longer rely on local taxpayer funds.

"I think education in general, and athletics specifically, needs to take on more of a business view in how we go about budgets and revenue sources and streams," Buckanavage said.

Aside from streamlining and combining transportation routes, and ordering less equipment, here are some funding models high school athletic departments could incorporate in the immediate future:

Activity fees

This isn't a new concept, some schools, such as Palmyra and Greencastle-Antrim, are already using the pay-to-play model. And the private schools have always charged a fee for athletics. Bishop McDevitt students pay $75 for the first sport, $50 for the second sport, and the third sport is free. More schools will likely adopt this practice soon.

Corporate sponsors

Athletic directors are now taking a page out of the books of their collegiate counterparts and soliciting funds from corporate sponsors.

More than ever before, schools are forging relationships with local businesses to help fund athletic programs, and we could also see more athletic facilities starting to sell their naming rights to the highest bidder.

"Athletic directors have to now do marketing too," Mechanicsburg's Andie Teeter said. "It's kind of hard because you have to be careful who your sponsors are – you can't have a beer distributor, or the restaurant with a bar, or cigarette companies. You have to be careful who you market to."

Self funding

Now in its fourth season of existence, boys lacrosse is a varsity sport at Mechanicsburg High School, but it is funded entirely by its booster club.

According to booster club president Kit Conner, the program runs on an annual budget of $15,00 to $20,000, which includes transportation costs, referee fees for home games, equipment, uniforms, and coaches salaries.

The booster club is charged which raising all the money, which then goes into a school district account under the supervision of the athletic department.

The group relies heavily on fundraisers, concession stand takings, and corporate sponsorships, but even then, the start-up cost per player is still a little higher than for a school-funded varsity sport, such as basketball.

Numbers at a glance: What a parent could expect to pay for one kid's participation in

Mechanicsburg boys basketball (school funded varsity sport) vs. Mechanicsburg boys lacrosse (self-funded varsity sport)

Basketball:

$100-$125: includes membership in the booster club and a raffle (for things such as senior recognition and pictures). This fee is expected, but according to Conner, single parents with financial constraints could consider it optional because this parent's payment is not required for team membership.

Lacrosse:

Minimum $300: Mandatory $150 up front for RaffleLax tickets (which the player can then sell if he chooses), $150 for basic, discounted equipment.

The Herald Banner (Greenville, TX) - GISD facing $500,000 Budget Deficit

By CAROL FERGUSON Herald-Banner Staff

GREENVILLE — Despite more than $1 million in budget cuts, the Greenville Independent School District is facing a budget deficit of approximately $500,000 for the 2010-11 fiscal year.

The Greenville ISD Board of Trustees conducted a workshop Tuesday afternoon, during which time the district’s chief financial officer, David Carter, gave a presentation regarding the 2010-11 budget.

Carter informed the board of the district’s 2010-11 budget goals, which include a balanced budget, reducing costs as far away from classrooms and students as possible, the continual review of staffing levels and the implementation of the strategic action plans approved by the board earlier this year.

“We are trying to cut as far away from kids and succesful programs as possible,” said Superintendent Don Jefferies.

Administrators are proposing an unchanged Maintenance and Operations (M&O) tax rate of $1.04 per $100 valuation, in addition to an Interest and Sinking (I&S) tax rate of $0.1548 per $100 valuation. The I&S is an increase of approximately $0.01 from the 2009-10 rate due to a decreased tax collection percentage.

The budget also factors in a state mandated pay increase for teachers and a proposed three percent pay increase for some administrators and all support staff, which includes aides, maintenance workers, bus drivers and custodial staff.

Without factoring in the pay increases for employees, the district is projected to have revenues of $32,720,561 and expenditures of $33,020,833 — equating to a deficit of approximately $300,272.Carter and Jefferies also detailed more than $1 million in budget cuts to reduce the deficit.

Budget cuts totaling $1,015,666 include: Re-locating Travis Elementary to the Sixth Grade Center, a five percent decrease in campus budgets, re-aligned central office and transportation staff and the attrition of vacant positions.

“We are trying to be as lean as we can with as good of people as we can get,” said Jefferies.

Trustee Anne Haynes, who presided over the meeting in the absence of Board President Charles Sivley, said the proposed 2010-11 budget was the leanest she has seen since serving on the board.

“It is one of the leanest budgets that accomplishes the most.

However, Haynes said the board would eventually have to consider a tax ratification election.

The district is expected to receive the certified tax roll from the Hunt County Appraisal District on July 25.

The next budget workshop is scheduled for July 27, during which time the board is expected to set the date for the public hearing regarding the budget and tax rate. Administrators have recommended that the public hearing and adoption of the budget and tax rate take place on Aug. 17.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1214

K-12 Education and Other Childhood Education Programs

At least 30 states and the District of Columbia have implemented cuts to K-12 education.

Arizona eliminated preschool for 4,328 children, funding for schools to provide additional support to disadvantaged children from preschool to third grade, aid to charter schools, and funding for books, computers, and other classroom supplies. The state also halved funding for kindergarten, leaving school districts and parents to shoulder the cost of keeping their children in school beyond a half-day schedule.

California reduced K-12 aid to local school districts by billions of dollars and is cutting a variety of programs, including adult literacy instruction and help for high-needs students.

Colorado has reduced public school spending in FY 2011 by $260 million, nearly a 5 percent decline from the previous year. The cut amounts to more than $400 per student.

Georgia cut state funding for K-12 education for FY 2011 by $403 million or 5.5 percent. The cut has led the state’s board of education to exempt local school districts from class size requirements to reduce costs.

Hawaii shortened the current school year by 17 days and is furloughing teachers for those days.

Illinois reduced funding for early childhood education by 10 percent, which could cause as many as 10,000 children to lose eligibility.

Maryland cut professional development for principals and educators, as well as health clinics, gifted and talented summer centers, and math and science initiatives.

Michigan cut its FY 2010 school aid budget by $382 million, resulting in a $165 per-pupil spending reduction.

Mississippi cut its FY 2010 funding for K-12 education by 9.5 percent, mostly out of the Mississippi Adequate Education Program established to bring per-pupil spending up to adequate levels in every district.

Massachusetts cut Head Start, universal pre-kindergarten programs, and early intervention services to help special-needs children develop appropriately and be ready for school. The state also cut K-12 funding, including for mentoring, teacher training, reimbursements for special education residential schools, services for disabled students, and programs for gifted and talented students.

New Jersey cut funding for afterschool programs aimed to enhance student achievement and keep students safe between the hours of 3 and 6 p.m. The cut will likely cause more than 11,000 students to lose access to the programs and 1,100 staff workers to lose their jobs.

Rhode Island cut state aid for K-12 education and reduced the number of children who can be served by Head Start and similar services.

Virginia’s $700 million in cuts for the coming biennium include the state’s share of an array of school district operating and capital expenses and funding for class-size reduction in kindergarten through third grade. In addition, a $500 million reduction in state funding for some 13,000 support staff such as janitors, school nurses, and school psychologists from last year’s budget was made permanent.

Washington suspended a program to reduce class sizes and provide professional development for teachers; the state also reduced funding for maintaining 4th grade student-to-staff-ratios by $30 million.

State education grants to school districts and education programs have also been cut in Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, and Utah.

New York Times - State Senate, Trying to Trim Deficit, Offers Budget Plan Cutting $1.4 Billion From Schools

By JEREMY W. PETERS

ALBANY — School financing, a perennial third rail of state politics, would be cut by $1.4 billion under a plan put forward on Monday by Senate Democrats trying to plug a budget deficit estimated at $9 billion.

The resolution the Senate passed constituted a grab bag from the $134 billion budget Gov. David A. Paterson introduced in January. It cut in many of the same areas the governor had, but also restored many of the reductions he had called for and rejected his most prominent revenue proposals.

The plan, which also counts on $700 million from the refinancing of tobacco bonds, was the Legislature’s first step toward laying out its own budget; it has a deadline of March 31. The Assembly is expected to adopt its own spending plan later this week.

Though the budget that ends up on Mr. Paterson’s desk could look quite different, Mr. Paterson praised the broad outlines of the Senate Democrats’ plan, which was adopted on a straight party-line vote.

“We are pleased to see that the Senate, for the most part, accepts the deficit reductions that we have made,” Mr. Paterson said Monday during an appearance at City Hall.

Senate Democrats, however, did not include the governor’s plans to tax sugary drinks, to raise the cigarette tax by $1, to $3.75, or to allow grocery stores to sell wine.

Their plan would leave spending for state parks at levels high enough that none would have to be closed and it would avoid deep cuts to the State University of New York and City University of New York systems.

But the plan essentially accepts the governor’s proposed education cuts, though it would distribute them differently — a move that was greeted with surprise in the halls of the Capitol, where teachers’ unions and public school lobbyists have long wielded great influence.

“It underscores the severity of the state’s budget problems that they are willing to accept a school aid cut,” said Edmund J. McMahon, director of the Empire Center for New York State Policy, a conservative-leaning research group. “Even they know you need to do this. And that’s a pretty significant thing.”

Democrats said they understood the significance of calling for such deep cuts to public schools, characterizing them as painful but unavoidable.

Asked why education, along with health care, was being singled out for cuts, Senator Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat, replied, “Because that’s where the money is.”

Whether those cuts would be included in the final budget passed by the Legislature was not clear. Senator John L. Sampson, leader of the Senate Democratic conference, said the budget resolution was merely a first step meant to jump-start the negotiation process.

“There will be a dialogue,” Mr. Sampson said. “This is just a resolution. This is a road map to where we want to go.”

Just last week, a group of 15 senators wrote to Mr. Paterson, telling him they would not support a budget that included spending reductions for schools.

In their plan, Senate Democrats also proposed cutting health care spending by about $641 million. That is less than the $1 billion reduction Mr. Paterson called for, but still amounts to an overall reduction of 1.3 percent to the Health Department’s budget. The department’s total budget would be $55.9 billion.

Advocates for public school teachers and administrators reacted with outrage to the Democrats’ plan.

The New York State School Boards Association estimated that it could cost 14,000 teachers their jobs.

Ernest Logan, president of the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators, called the plan “unconscionable.”

Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers, said it would result in deteriorating conditions at New York City schools, just as the financial crisis of the 1970s had. “The Senate’s proposal is a disaster in the making for the children in New York’s public schools,” Mr. Mulgrew said.

Others had different reasons for disliking the plan. Some found the Democrats’ budget had a too-good-to-be-true ring to it. “How did we balance this budget by restoring all these wonderful things?” asked Senator John A. DeFrancisco, a Republican from the Syracuse area. “Well, simple answer: It’s not balanced.”

A caption in an earlier version of this article mistakenly identified Senator John L. Sampson as John L. Sann.