Cut Sports Rather Than Libraries

[RhodyDave]

Heard a discouraging report on the news this morning as I was driving. The gist of it was that a school board is considering closing the libraries of the schools, as they are categorized as "luxuries". Luxuries!

How have we gotten to such a state as this that books and libraries could even be considered a luxury? Yet every high school across the nation has multiple sport programs that surely cost taxpayers far more than libraries.

I'd rather see sport be eliminated from our school budget. It doesn't do anything to further an academic career. There are many non-school athletic programs that children can participate in if they choose. Yet when a school does cut an athletic program, typically a "minor" sport, like field hockey, there's a community uproar and hue and cry about the loss.

Inevitably, the first cuts are always to the arts; music, art, drama. Now we have to include libraries in this list of culturally expendable fields. Never mind that a society benefits far more from the arts and books/libraries than it does from its sporting events. So crazy, and so sad.

[fuelair]

Think of the average school board as necks with a large rectum on top to spew from.
That should help you understand the situation with more clarity. Now, add a clear and obvious religious symbol on a pin or piece of jewelry. Then mention casually how you admire the piece and listen as they refer to it as "jewleree".

Catching on yet how they can destroy science, arts and libraries without a dribble.*




eta *well actually some may dribble and most will shart.

[applecorped]

It doesn't do anything to further an academic career.

It doesn't?

[RhodyDave]

Think of the average school board as necks with a large rectum on top to spew from.
That should help you understand the situation with more clarity. Now, add a clear and obvious religious symbol on a pin or piece of jewelry. Then mention casually how you admire the piece and listen as they refer to it as "jewleree".

Catching on yet how they can destroy science, arts and libraries without a dribble.*




eta *well actually some may dribble and most will shart.

Funny, and yet disturbing and accurate. Thanks for the laugh! :)

[RhodyDave]

It doesn't?

Tell me how baseball or swimming have a bearing on your test scores, your SATs, or your understanding of any academic subject matter? If I'm wrong, I'll be glad to be educated on this.

[AvalonXQ]

As long as the school provides sufficient access to the internet, maintaining shelves of books are unnecessary. Physical libraries are becoming more and more of a relic as information is available in more convenient forms.
In many districts, cutting sports would help the budget exactly zilch, as the schools don't pay for sports. The parents, boosters, and fans do.

[AvalonXQ]

Tell me how baseball or swimming have a bearing on your test scores, your SATs, or your understanding of any academic subject matter? If I'm wrong, I'll be glad to be educated on this.

Baseball and swimming have the same bearing of those things as do playing trombone or knowing how to swing dance. Which is to say, some.
As I understand it, sports and the arts have the same positive -- any structured extracurricular enhances academic ability in students.

[Moon-Spinner]

In our local district we're getting a lot of the same kind of insanity. Times are tough, but the school board can't seem to make reasonable decisions - They want to raise taxes every 6 months, and when the citizens complain, the school board threatens to lay off teachers... TEACHERS??? There are so many other areas to make cuts, starting with the top-heavy Administrators, or After School activities, or Hall Monitors, or Summer Activities, the list can go on...

It was recently reported in the paper about some areas for making cuts, but don't worry, the Administrators were still able to give themselves all raises!

[AvalonXQ]

There are so many other areas to make cuts, starting with the top-heavy Administrators,
Most people don't realize how many administrators are actually necessary to keep a school going without driving the existing administrators into early graves. Running a school district is not a ten-person job.

It was recently reported in the paper about some areas for making cuts, but don't worry, the Administrators were still able to give themselves all raises!

1) If the district is run by a school board, then most likely the administrators don't set any salaries -- the school board does.
2) How much of a raise? How does it compare to what the teachers got? How does it compare to other administrators in the same tri-county area?
So often people feel like there are easy answers for school financing. Often there's not. Are you in a state that mandatorily cuts millage to maintain revenue? Because if you are, the school district has to continually pass new taxes just to tread water.

[RhodyDave]

As long as the school provides sufficient access to the internet, maintaining shelves of books are unnecessary. Physical libraries are becoming more and more of a relic as information is available in more convenient forms.
In many districts, cutting sports would help the budget exactly zilch, as the schools don't pay for sports. The parents, boosters, and fans do.

That's ridiculous. The schools in my town have football fields, baseball fields, track, weight rooms, swimming pool, and tennis courts, to name a few. The town taxes its residents to pay for these things. Of course it would help the school budget to reduce these expenditures.

Also, many studies have shown that art and music are beneficial to developing well-rounded students. Athletics are of course useful, but they do not need to be so prominently featured. There are far fewer opportunities for students to learn the arts outside of school than there are for them to pick up a ball and play.

[Dr. Keith]

As long as the school provides sufficient access to the internet, maintaining shelves of books are unnecessary. Physical libraries are becoming more and more of a relic as information is available in more convenient forms.

Have you never been to a school library? I'm not a librarian, so I won't even start to detail how wrong you are, but suffice it to say that just because you never benefited from a library does not mean others don't.

I'd move districts if ours even threatened to cut the libraries.

In many districts, cutting sports would help the budget exactly zilch, as the schools don't pay for sports. The parents, boosters, and fans do.

Really? The stadiums, the coaches, the uniforms, the buses, and other travel expenses? All covered by the parents, boosters and fans. That's some booster club you got there.

[ElMondoHummus]

Are they cutting access to stores of information, or are they merely cutting access to physical libraries? If they're replacing physical librarires with, say, electronic access to library-type resources (like online encyclopedias, academic e-journals, etc.), then that's not necessarily a deprivation.

Also, are individual schools in an area cutting individual libraries altogether, or are they pooling resources and in the process are consolidating collections? That's not ideal, since travel would then be necessary, but it's an understandable compromise when dollars are short.

And while I admit that there are opportunities for sports outside the school system, I wouldn't consider something that encourages physical fitness to be a "luxury". Furthermore, if done right, fees and ticket sales can offset the cost of a school's sports programs. It probably won't be profitable, but if it can lessen the loss, that would be helpful to the bottom line.

Yes, I totally agree with the objection to describing libraries as a "luxury". I disagree, however, with slapping that label on arts and sports programs. A well rounded school or school system offers opportunities for both.

[excaza]

Really? The stadiums, the coaches, the uniforms, the buses, and other travel expenses? All covered by the parents, boosters and fans. That's some booster club you got there.

The public schools in my town all required kids to pay a few hundred dollars if they wanted to play sports, and they had really nice fields. This is becoming more and more common, and it seems to work well enough.

[Careyp74]

The public schools in my town all required kids to pay a few hundred dollars if they wanted to play sports, and they had really nice fields. This is becoming more and more common, and it seems to work well enough.

The stadium at my high school was paid for by a rich alum., which was named for him afterwards. Uniforms are bought by the students. The kids do fundraisers to bring in more money. Hate to say it, but there is little spent on sports. Also, the games themselves bring in money through ticket sales.

All other extra curricular activity has the same chance. Sadly, no one wants to go to the jazz band performances, or pay to see the art students' work.

Just curious, how much is the library used in your school? Is the community willing to donate to save the library?

On a side note: Maybe it would be wise to make purchasing a Kindle a requirement for students. Then all the classics would be on hand for free to the students.

[SonOfLaertes]

Tell me how baseball or swimming have a bearing on your test scores, your SATs, or your understanding of any academic subject matter? If I'm wrong, I'll be glad to be educated on this.

I did very well in school, and never visited the library in school once. I did frequent the county and local libraries, as they were much bigger and there was a much better chance that I would find what I needed there. I can't even remember what the school library looked like but I remember the county library well - sometimes we went there just to hang out and browse. Having a school library never made sense to me, they were too small compared to the county or city libraries.

I was on the swim team and the track team in high school. Kids who are in good cardiovascular health are at a distinct advantage over kids who plod on home and play video games all afternoon. I've noticed that those who participated in team sports as kids also tend to continue playing as adults, to the benefit of their overall health.

Kids in sports also tend to have a wider circle of friends. Many of my teammates were in other grades or on other tracks academically, and I got a good job after school because of a contact I would never haver made if I didn't play.

Many of the team sports, particularly (American) football and wrestling in the school I attended, actually generated net revenue for their schools, and bring people out to the school years after they have graduated to watch games and catch up with old acquaintances.

[Nosi]

Have you never been to a school library? I'm not a librarian, so I won't even start to detail how wrong you are, but suffice it to say that just because you never benefited from a library does not mean others don't.

I'd move districts if ours even threatened to cut the libraries.

Really? The stadiums, the coaches, the uniforms, the buses, and other travel expenses? All covered by the parents, boosters and fans. That's some booster club you got there.

Physical libraries (materials - housing) are becoming more expensive and incentive to pay harder to come by. However, you need not take the loss of your library laying down or having to run away to find another. You can with the help of determined fellow parents build a cyber library. (http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/GR2080.aspx)

You'll need (this is a guess guys, please don't pounce on me if my facts aren't all correct/right, the facts are in the book that I've not read) at least one geek to set up the system, several terminals, monitors, keyboards/mice connected to at least one computer with Internet access.

[Dr. Keith]

Physical libraries (materials - housing) are becoming more expensive and incentive to pay harder to come by. However, you need not take the loss of your library laying down or having to run away to find another. You can with the help of determined fellow parents build a cyber library. (http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/GR2080.aspx)

I'd sooner settle for cyber-sex than a cyber-library.

The library is more than a data repository, it is where children learn to do research, learn to ask questions, learn to evaluate resources and learn that thinking is more important than regurgitating.

[OneEyedFatMan]

I heard this, or a similiar story, here in Albuquerque, NM this morning.

I thought the gist of the story was a cut in library staff, not the libraries themselves.

I sincerely believe that the schools need to make their cuts at the top (WAY to many administrators in APS), not the bottom.

And, even though I was a HS Football coach thirty years ago, I believe that our schools place far to much emphasis on sports.


jwr

[AvalonXQ]

Have you never been to a school library? I'm not a librarian, so I won't even start to detail how wrong you are, but suffice it to say that just because you never benefited from a library does not mean others don't.
I've never been to a school library that had more than two large rooms full of bookshelves. The amount of information available in those little rooms is miniscule. Their loss does not concern me, provided that electronic resources, far more robust, are in evidence.

Really? The stadiums, the coaches, the uniforms, the buses, and other travel expenses? All covered by the parents, boosters and fans. That's some booster club you got there.
Yes, it is. Every stadium had several sponsors and many donors, every sport required significant fundraising and a substantial contribution from the parents. My understanding is that cutting sports wouldn't have changed the district's bottom line by any significant amount where I was in school.

[AvalonXQ]

That's ridiculous. The schools in my town have football fields, baseball fields, track, weight rooms, swimming pool, and tennis courts, to name a few. The town taxes its residents to pay for these things. Of course it would help the school budget to reduce these expenditures.

So, you've actually seen the district's annual budget? What's the net expenditure associated with sports, and how much money do the sports bring in?
If you're right that sports are heavily subsidized with taxes, then your school district is way out of date in its accounting practices. They should cut tax funding to the sports programs, and watch as the sports find other ways to stay afloat.

[AvalonXQ]

I'd sooner settle for cyber-sex than a cyber-library.

The library is more than a data repository, it is where children learn to do research, learn to ask questions, learn to evaluate resources and learn that thinking is more important than regurgitating.

And why can't they do that in a well-staffed computer lab? What is so remarkable about physical books that they're needed to learn these skills?

[Tatyana]

Tell me how baseball or swimming have a bearing on your test scores, your SATs, or your understanding of any academic subject matter? If I'm wrong, I'll be glad to be educated on this.


Participating in school sports taught me discipline, how to be disciplined, how to push myself through physical and psychological barriers as well as being an amazing way to chill out when I was stressed from studying.

I think the whole us-them attitude with sports and academics really has to be broken down, it is possible to be a sporting geek. :)

[applecorped]

Tell me how baseball or swimming have a bearing on your test scores, your SATs, or your understanding of any academic subject matter? If I'm wrong, I'll be glad to be educated on this.

Out of curiosity, did you play any sports while in school?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Heard a discouraging report on the news this morning as I was driving. The gist of it was that a school board is considering closing the libraries of the schools, as they are categorized as "luxuries". Luxuries!

How have we gotten to such a state as this that books and libraries could even be considered a luxury? Yet every high school across the nation has multiple sport programs that surely cost taxpayers far more than libraries.

I'd rather see sport be eliminated from our school budget. It doesn't do anything to further an academic career. There are many non-school athletic programs that children can participate in if they choose. Yet when a school does cut an athletic program, typically a "minor" sport, like field hockey, there's a community uproar and hue and cry about the loss.

Inevitably, the first cuts are always to the arts; music, art, drama. Now we have to include libraries in this list of culturally expendable fields. Never mind that a society benefits far more from the arts and books/libraries than it does from its sporting events. So crazy, and so sad.

Why do you hate America?

[Nosi]

Out of curiosity, did you play any sports while in school?

I didn't, but I've two left feet. I did do drama in my Senior year and did art classes all through school.

[RhodyDave]

Out of curiosity, did you play any sports while in school?

I did, but outside of school. I biked - up to 75 mile rides, swam - was a lifeguard, and played hoops, baseball, football, and skateboarded. I didn't participate in the school sport programs though as I hated most things about school outside of the art program that I was in.

While I recognize that athletics provide benefits, I don't think they need to be a prominent feature of scholastic life. As an extreme example, there are countless college athletes that can't read and write beyond a grade school level. Once their collegiate careers are over, most never go pro, and are ill-equipped for life outside of sport.

[RhodyDave]

Why do you hate America?

I don't. I hope you're being sarcastic. :confused:

[themusicteacher]

The sports programs in our district do not pay for themselves (and most don't; the prices they charge for tickets are not enough to cover expenses). Even top moneymakers like basketball and football can't possibly cover all the charges they incur for equipment, facilities, coaching, uniforms, cleaning, electricity (all our games are night games), etc. The district provides a good amount of funding for travel and coaching stipends but that budget has been restricted so most of the sports teams do fund-raising of some sort. This isn't pro or college sports with sponsorships (at least not in most districts, especially here in NM).

[themusicteacher]

Baseball and swimming have the same bearing of those things as do playing trombone or knowing how to swing dance. Which is to say, some.
As I understand it, sports and the arts have the same positive -- any structured extracurricular enhances academic ability in students.

This is the sort of wrong-headed thinking we have all over the country: that certain subjects - math, science, English - are somehow "core" (read: necessary above all else, special) and that other legitimate areas of learning are "luxuries" or "supportive (to REAL education)." The arts are areas of learning just as math or science are. To say that education in them has less inherent value is insipid. We value science and math because they are more economically lucrative; if they weren't, we wouldn't teach them, right? They have no inherent value other than their utilitarian economic applications? If we can't make a buck off it, we shouldn't be teaching it, no?

This is really the core of the education debate: is education about helping people to reach their potentials in all areas of learning or is it about focusing our efforts only on those things that have immediate and apparent economic value? I would say that most people have been led to believe it's the latter. If that's what we're going to do, let's call a spade a spade: we will no longer have education, we will have job training. Say goodbye to "English" beyond what is needed to write technical material (no more classics - those are not "useful" in a real sense), any foreign language besides Spanish, Chinese or Arabic (we need those languages more than any due to their usefulness), the arts and sports are gone (anyone who is talented, motivated and wealthy enough - in that combination only! - can find their way to a conservatory or athletic trainer and/or club teams on their own time), no civics or government classes (or any social studies - how are we going to make money at that?).

Now we have a really streamlined school, right? Science, math and some courses in practical foreign language and technical English. Sounds like a place any corporation would love - pumps out ready-made, well-oiled productive workers who don't have a life of the mind outside of the skill-sets useful for work. It may sound extreme but it is the direction we are heading. The arts, civics (oh yeah: goodbye functioning democracy!) and the like have been pushed out in favor of increasingly technocratic classes.

I realize that we live in a very technological age but that doesn't mean we have to sacrifice everything else. There is a place for more than just science and math in the curriculum just as there is a place for more than just work in our lives. Discovery through writing or music or art or social studies is just as important as discovery through science or math. The concept is called balance and we could certainly use more of it in our schools and lives.

[AvalonXQ]

I love how you first say we won't teach civics because it's not useful, and then you acknowledge that without it we won't have a functioning democracy.
The purpose of a core curriculum in education is to equip students to function effectively in society. This means that, yes, coursework in practical reading and writing, in basic reasoning skills, in enough math and science to function in business, and in enough health and civics to survive and support our democracy is exactly what mandatory public education is about. At least today, we aren't even managing to successfully complete these goals for education.
Asking for us to focus art, music, and sports when many of our kids can't even quote the Bill of Rights, write a letter, or add up the numbers on their grocery bill makes about as much sense as looking at a restaurant where people are dying of food poisoning and complaining that there aren't enough flavors of pie on the dessert menu.

[Woolgatherer]

Tell me how baseball or swimming have a bearing on your test scores, your SATs, or your understanding of any academic subject matter? If I'm wrong, I'll be glad to be educated on this.

All through High School I was surprised how much I liked the city swim team better than my high school team (I was on both). Of course, one had to pay for the city team to be a part of it but it was far more competitive and even allowed swimmers that were just there to practice and get some exercise to participate.
The city team had better coaching and for me it was a better experience.
I wish all the swimming I experienced would've educated me at the same time, unfortunately, it just didn't work that way.

[seayakin]

Converting a library to a "Cybrary" requires more than replacing information in one format for another. This makes the assumption that libraries are simply store houses of information and librarians are just there to check out books and tell people to be quiet. If the librarian at said library is doing their job well, they are providing a lot of value added service like selecting appropriate resources (in other words managing a budget to purchase books and online resources to use the money most effectively) and working with teachers on information literacy (which not only involves learning how to find information but evaluate it).

Also, converting resources from paper to electronic may not be cheaper. Not everything is free on the internet. Basic subscriptions to serial database and ebook collections are quite expensive and are subscription based so you almost never own the content. When you buy a paper book, it is a one time expense. Lastly, the kindle is probably the last ebook reader you want to go to since Amazon pretty much charges for everything.

[coalesce]

I heard this, or a similiar story, here in Albuquerque, NM this morning.

I thought the gist of the story was a cut in library staff, not the libraries themselves.

I sincerely believe that the schools need to make their cuts at the top (WAY to many administrators in APS), not the bottom.

And, even though I was a HS Football coach thirty years ago, I believe that our schools place far to much emphasis on sports.


jwr

First off, welcome!

Secondly, I'm pleased to hear you say that about the over-emphasis of sports. Not having been involved in organized school sports of any type, I always had the stereotypical image of a high school athletic coach as an over-zealous, under-evolved man who just wanted to see his tribe beat the DNA out of the opposing tribe at any cost and thought it was more important that his tribe get a trophy rather than be able to read what's printed on the trophy.

Michael

P.S.

Is your user name is based on Dashiell Hammett's character "The Fat Man"?

[Cayvmann]

Think of the average school board as necks with a large rectum on top to spew from.
That should help you understand the situation with more clarity. Now, add a clear and obvious religious symbol on a pin or piece of jewelry. Then mention casually how you admire the piece and listen as they refer to it as "jewleree".

Catching on yet how they can destroy science, arts and libraries without a dribble.*




eta *well actually some may dribble and most will shart.

You my friend are a genius. Outstanding description.

[RhodyDave]

This is the sort of wrong-headed thinking we have all over the country: that certain subjects - math, science, English - are somehow "core" (read: necessary above all else, special) and that other legitimate areas of learning are "luxuries" or "supportive (to REAL education)." The arts are areas of learning just as math or science are. To say that education in them has less inherent value is insipid. We value science and math because they are more economically lucrative; if they weren't, we wouldn't teach them, right? They have no inherent value other than their utilitarian economic applications? If we can't make a buck off it, we shouldn't be teaching it, no?

This is really the core of the education debate: is education about helping people to reach their potentials in all areas of learning or is it about focusing our efforts only on those things that have immediate and apparent economic value? I would say that most people have been led to believe it's the latter. If that's what we're going to do, let's call a spade a spade: we will no longer have education, we will have job training. Say goodbye to "English" beyond what is needed to write technical material (no more classics - those are not "useful" in a real sense), any foreign language besides Spanish, Chinese or Arabic (we need those languages more than any due to their usefulness), the arts and sports are gone (anyone who is talented, motivated and wealthy enough - in that combination only! - can find their way to a conservatory or athletic trainer and/or club teams on their own time), no civics or government classes (or any social studies - how are we going to make money at that?).

Now we have a really streamlined school, right? Science, math and some courses in practical foreign language and technical English. Sounds like a place any corporation would love - pumps out ready-made, well-oiled productive workers who don't have a life of the mind outside of the skill-sets useful for work. It may sound extreme but it is the direction we are heading. The arts, civics (oh yeah: goodbye functioning democracy!) and the like have been pushed out in favor of increasingly technocratic classes.

I realize that we live in a very technological age but that doesn't mean we have to sacrifice everything else. There is a place for more than just science and math in the curriculum just as there is a place for more than just work in our lives. Discovery through writing or music or art or social studies is just as important as discovery through science or math. The concept is called balance and we could certainly use more of it in our schools and lives.

Well said (and nominated!) :)

[fuelair]

I don't. I hope you're being sarcastic. :confused:

It's a joke phrase here!:D Semi-sarcastic, means you (usually) are treading liberal and makes fun of the (I don't want our boys and girls sent to Afghanistan to die for Oil!! Why do you hate America? OR That photo of Bush in a flight suit pretending to give a crap about US soldiers was just pathetic!! Why do you hate America? etc.)type of exchange.

Enjoy, be happy, don't worry!!!

[blutoski]

As long as the school provides sufficient access to the internet, maintaining shelves of books are unnecessary. Physical libraries are becoming more and more of a relic as information is available in more convenient forms.

Generally, I agree with you, but I can't agree with the above paragraph.

The internet may contain a lot of factual information, but it's not a medium that actually contains the same content that you find in most books.

I think very few titles sitting on shelves in the library would be available in online versions.

Just as an exercise, I tried to locate an online copy of Cat in the Hat.




In many districts, cutting sports would help the budget exactly zilch, as the schools don't pay for sports. The parents, boosters, and fans do.

This may vary from region to region, but I suspect most schools have a significant sports budget for maintaining facilities and equipment, not to mention a PE teacher or two.

[Dr. Keith]

I've never been to a school library that had more than two large rooms full of bookshelves. The amount of information available in those little rooms is miniscule. Their loss does not concern me, provided that electronic resources, far more robust, are in evidence.

I like the false dichotomy. There area dozen computers in my kid's library. They are set aside for research. There are also tons of books, some non-fiction, some fiction. As an avid reader and someone who does a fair amount of research I can appreciate the need for electronic and paper resources. Electronic resources provide fast directed access while paper resources provide a browse-ability that electronic just can't match.

To return momentarily to the thread where I agreed with you about the place of non-fiction classification: you don't see The God Delusion next to books on religion in an electronic resource. You do in a properly cataloged library.

To claim one is superior to the other is just a failure to understand their respective values.

Furthermore, librarians are information experts. They are there to assist the teachers in developing and honing research skills. Those skills don't fall into a core class easily and it help to have a point person for that purpose.


Yes, it is. Every stadium had several sponsors and many donors, every sport required significant fundraising and a substantial contribution from the parents. My understanding is that cutting sports wouldn't have changed the district's bottom line by any significant amount where I was in school.

I would posit that this is an aberration. I have never heard of a local stadium being built with non-public funds. I'd love to see some news stories about that. Care to share?

[Dr. Keith]

And why can't they do that in a well-staffed computer lab? What is so remarkable about physical books that they're needed to learn these skills?

Despite google's best efforts, it is still not all online. Actually, most of the best stuff is not online.*

*Not just talking about books here.

[themusicteacher]

I love how you first say we won't teach civics because it's not useful, and then you acknowledge that without it we won't have a functioning democracy.
The purpose of a core curriculum in education is to equip students to function effectively in society. This means that, yes, coursework in practical reading and writing, in basic reasoning skills, in enough math and science to function in business, and in enough health and civics to survive and support our democracy is exactly what mandatory public education is about. At least today, we aren't even managing to successfully complete these goals for education.
Asking for us to focus art, music, and sports when many of our kids can't even quote the Bill of Rights, write a letter, or add up the numbers on their grocery bill makes about as much sense as looking at a restaurant where people are dying of food poisoning and complaining that there aren't enough flavors of pie on the dessert menu.

Thanks for missing the point. I was saying that a functioning democracy is exactly what the corporations don't want. They don't care if you're ill-informed as long as you can do the work they need you to do. Ever since they came into education with their pathetic buzzwords like "stakeholders," public education has become beholden to their interests, not the general interests of an free, open, democratic society. Of course we can't have a functioning democracy without civics and government classes but we've already made the choice which you've so richly illustrated (and without a hint of irony!). You've boiled it down to the either-or propositions anti-education organizations love: it's either science and math OR civics and literature and (with science and math being more lucrative); it's either history and foreign languages OR the arts. You also can't have people that have developed their full intellectual capacities when you've narrowed the curriculum so far as to be less than half-assed. Granted, we can't have it ALL but the false dichotomization and reductionism of education is almost complete.

It is no state secret that math, science and, alas, English requirements make up the bulk of any high-school's graduation requirements with the rest being made up by "filler" requirements such as a few semesters of history or foreign language and electives (the subjects that kids are often most passionate about). I can agree that we need a more scientifically (and perhaps mathematically) literate society since we do live in a world dominated by science and technology but they are not the only things of value to be taught and learned.

Make no mistake: we do not have such staunch math and science requirements because we care about scientific literacy or the ability to the think scientifically or empirically. We have those requirements so that we can easily fit the cogs into the machine. This level of cynical pandering to business interests is antithetical to democracy in education but I believe nobody cares about that anymore. We've been lulled into believing that the only function of education is to "get a job" or "be a productive member of society" (code for: get a job, stay out of trouble, don't make waves, don't ask questions).

I fully understand the push for more academic "rigor" and "raising the bar" (moer buzzwords from corporate America that are, at their core, meaningless for educational purposes). I teach in one of the most scientifically literate, competition-oriented communities in the US and some of those people are absolutely insane about their kids taking all the AP's (and we offer a ton of them; I teach one of them), getting straight A's, getting the big scholarship, getting into the "top-tier" schools. Most of them, though, understand that there is more to life than getting a "good job" (easy to say when you make 6 figures, I know) and that there is value in balance and developing all of ones abilities.

I am worried about the level of civic participation and understanding of our form of democracy (especially by the rhetoric that tries to subvert that form of government; you win, that's how it works, they win, the fix was in, right?) but we're doing nothing about that. Civics classes are dwindling if not already gone and I guarantee that knowing the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are not requirements in most government classes. Is this changing? Not a chance. Civics is a waste of time to "stakeholders" and takes away from the time they could be taking a computer programming class. Useful for a business? You bet. Useful for democracy? Not really.

[AvalonXQ]

See, my problem with your position is that I've always seen civics classes as being on the "essential, do not cut" side of the divide. Where I was educated, the proficiency tests to graduate include reading, writing, math, science, and citizenship. To my knowledge civics coursework has always been in the core curriculum and there's never been any movement toward cutting it.
Your argument seems largely based on the idea that civics classes are cut as not part of the core. If that's true, it's an issue -- but lumping civics in with electives like art and sports seems to be creating your own low-hanging fruit for this discussion. I support the notion of basic, core coursework trumping extras in the mandatory public curriculum. If you assume that quality coursework in critical thinking and civics is part of this core, what's left of your argument?

[blutoski]

Despite google's best efforts, it is still not all online. Actually, most of the best stuff is not online.*

*Not just talking about books here.

And probably never will be, and not just because of copyright issues. It's just a monumental effort that I don't see anybody doing in the forseeable future.

In any case, it's not been done as of this date, so closing a library has the immediate effect of making thousands of titles less conveniently available to the students.

[RhodyDave]

It's a joke phrase here!:D Semi-sarcastic, means you (usually) are treading liberal and makes fun of the (I don't want our boys and girls sent to Afghanistan to die for Oil!! Why do you hate America? OR That photo of Bush in a flight suit pretending to give a crap about US soldiers was just pathetic!! Why do you hate America? etc.)type of exchange.

Enjoy, be happy, don't worry!!!

:relieved: Thanks!

[Complexity]

Heard a discouraging report on the news this morning as I was driving. The gist of it was that a school board is considering closing the libraries of the schools, as they are categorized as "luxuries". Luxuries!

How have we gotten to such a state as this that books and libraries could even be considered a luxury? Yet every high school across the nation has multiple sport programs that surely cost taxpayers far more than libraries.

I'd rather see sport be eliminated from our school budget. It doesn't do anything to further an academic career. There are many non-school athletic programs that children can participate in if they choose. Yet when a school does cut an athletic program, typically a "minor" sport, like field hockey, there's a community uproar and hue and cry about the loss.

Inevitably, the first cuts are always to the arts; music, art, drama. Now we have to include libraries in this list of culturally expendable fields. Never mind that a society benefits far more from the arts and books/libraries than it does from its sporting events. So crazy, and so sad.


Sports would be the first thing I'd cut. Not phys ed - sports.

The kids that are into sports will play them regardless of school support and facilities.

The most important function of schools is to educate, not to entertain.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The kids that are into sports will play them regardless of school support and facilities.

Could you not make exactly the same statement about music, art or indeed reading?

Specifically in the context of sport, I think it is less likely to be true as sport tends to require a higher degree of organisation / resources to make it possible to play as opposed to the others which can (largely) be done as a solitary activity.

That's not to say they should be protected from cuts, just that I am not sure this is the right argument to use.

[ZirconBlue]

Participating in school sports taught me discipline, how to be disciplined, how to push myself through physical and psychological barriers as well as being an amazing way to chill out when I was stressed from studying.

I got all of that from Marching Band.


The internet may contain a lot of factual information, but it's not a medium that actually contains the same content that you find in most books.

I think very few titles sitting on shelves in the library would be available in online versions.

Almost certainly not in free online versions.

And probably never will be, and not just because of copyright issues. It's just a monumental effort that I don't see anybody doing in the forseeable future.

Google was working on it, but ran into some legal issues.

[Complexity]

Could you not make exactly the same statement about music, art or indeed reading?

Specifically in the context of sport, I think it is less likely to be true as sport tends to require a higher degree of organisation / resources to make it possible to play as opposed to the others which can (largely) be done as a solitary activity.

That's not to say they should be protected from cuts, just that I am not sure this is the right argument to use.


You could make the similar statements regarding music, art, or reading, but they wouldn't be as accurate.

I also value each of those things far more than organised sports.

[AvalonXQ]

Specifically in the context of sport, I think it is less likely to be true as sport tends to require a higher degree of organisation / resources to make it possible to play as opposed to the others which can (largely) be done as a solitary activity.

I think it's reasonable to note that sports will tend to be supported by privately-funded organizations. In most American cities there are youth soccer and baseball leagues at least, which aren't supported by the schools at all. If schools didn't have football teams, I'd expect most cities would have football leagues for high-school-age kids.

[excaza]

I think it's reasonable to note that sports will tend to be supported by privately-funded organizations. In most American cities there are youth soccer and baseball leagues at least, which aren't supported by the schools at all. If schools didn't have football teams, I'd expect most cities would have football leagues for high-school-age kids.

Most of the city-run leagues, at least around here, are run using mostly state parks & recreation money (plus some donations from local business and the registration fees). Parks & rec doesn't sit too high on the totem pole when budget cuts come rolling around.

[AvalonXQ]

Most of the city-run leagues, at least around here, are run using mostly state parks & recreation money (plus some donations from local business and the registration fees). Parks & rec doesn't sit too high on the totem pole when budget cuts come rolling around.

Again, where I come from, the leagues are privately run.

[pgwenthold]

Most of the city-run leagues, at least around here, are run using mostly state parks & recreation money (plus some donations from local business and the registration fees). Parks & rec doesn't sit too high on the totem pole when budget cuts come rolling around.

But what if that is cut? Along comes the AAU or American Legion, and they continue.

There's no doubt that people will let someone else pay for sports activities. The question is, what do they do if others don't pay for it? Usually, someone steps up to fill that need, whether it is an organization or the people themselves.

[Jekyll's Guest]

I'm in Texas, they are literally INSANE about kids sports.

They have High School and College stadia here that are better than most professional sporting teams. Grown men follow HS Football like it was the NFL. They have televised games!

Back at my rathole in England, our school had no uniforms, groin cups, etc. It was the ultra basics, usually just a ball and a field.

I see the kids here riding in special buses and being worshipped like Demi-Gods. It...confuses me.

"My son plays tackle at Bedford High!"

I don't care, take down the massive lawn sign.

[NobbyNobbs]

There's a wonderfully appropriate line in the movie Mr. Holland's Opus which says something along the lines of:

Sure, you can stick to reading and writing and cut out music, drama, and the arts, but pretty soon there won't be anything left to read and write *about*.

[Foolmewunz]

In support of what Avalon was saying, I went to JHS in Tulsa, OK. We're talking Gridiron Country, folks! Any organized team sports (there was only the one - football) had to be completely funded by parents/boosters. We had one of the worst teams in the city, but they still got them money for uniforms, transportation, a practice field, a home field, etc.... Neither the school nor school board picked up a penny in the expenses.

(They were allowed to have bake sales and such on school grounds, but I know of a couple of schools that even insisted that those activities were taken outside.)

Some cynical bastage (well, it was me) once pointed out that this was popular in HS Football Country (Western PA, All of TX, All of OK) because it kept the school officials' hands clean when the boosters went out and violated about fourteen local or national statutes every week. Boosters just love being able to hire/fire the coach at whim, for instance.

[ZirconBlue]

I'm in Texas, they are literally INSANE about kids sports.

Fixed that for you.

:runaway

[AvalonXQ]

Sure, you can stick to reading and writing and cut out music, drama, and the arts, but pretty soon there won't be anything left to read and write *about*.

Yes, because so much of the important music, drama, and literature in the world was created by high school students.

[OneEyedFatMan]

No, my user name was stolen from the old western 'True Grit', where the 'bad guy' tells Rooster Cogburn (John Wayne) 'I call that bold talk from a One Eyed Fat Man'.

[Foolmewunz]

Yes, because so much of the important music, drama, and literature in the world was created by high school students.

Probably created by people who learned of the arts in high school, though.

[AvalonXQ]

Probably created by people who learned of the arts in high school, though.

Skills in the arts are going to tend to come from private tutledge, apprenticeships, and lots of practice by the artist. Again, I really doubt that we're going to lose out on the next Mozart because public schools cut music programs. People who want to paint or write poetry will do it whether or not the high school offers them a course in it.

[themusicteacher]

See, my problem with your position is that I've always seen civics classes as being on the "essential, do not cut" side of the divide. Where I was educated, the proficiency tests to graduate include reading, writing, math, science, and citizenship. To my knowledge civics coursework has always been in the core curriculum and there's never been any movement toward cutting it.
Your argument seems largely based on the idea that civics classes are cut as not part of the core. If that's true, it's an issue -- but lumping civics in with electives like art and sports seems to be creating your own low-hanging fruit for this discussion. I support the notion of basic, core coursework trumping extras in the mandatory public curriculum. If you assume that quality coursework in critical thinking and civics is part of this core, what's left of your argument?

Once more, you've missed my point. Of course civics are essential. My problem is with the idea of "core" versus "extra's." The entire notion of "core" is reductive and preposterous. If it is an (broad) area of human learning and understanding, it should be taught. However, some of the powers that be have insisted for quite some time that things like music and art and PE are "frills."

Tell me, how are the arts a "frill/extra?" How is it that someone can be a complete artistic illiterate and still be a fully functional member of a free and open society, gaining all there is to be gained from modern human life and understanding our development as a culture and species as well as the inner workings of a complex and deep human interaction with their world? Think carefully about your answer. You could teach someone no more than basic arithmetic and they'd "be fine" so long as their work didn't require them to know more than basic arithmetic. You could teach someone no science whatsoever and they'd "be fine" so long as their work didn't require it's use. The purely economic and practical reasons given for teaching those subjects are shallow and superficial.

We teach things like advanced math and science as a rule because we live in an increasingly teachnical society and world that is dependent on mathematical and scientific literacy and we need people to understand, at least on a basic level, what science is and what it does as well as how to use it (and how not to use it). We teach the arts because they also have something powerful to say about who we are as humans and are just as much about self-discovery as are the sciences (though obviously in different ways). To leave people to their own devices in the arts is just as stupid as leaving them to their own devices in science.

We've been so small-minded and reductive in our thinking and allowed economic interest to trump educational interest. When it became apparent that teaching things like civics and history and social studies were not immediately economically lucrative, they became superfluous and their role in the school was reduced. It continues on in this fashion with the arts: though they are emminently useful in a persons life, they aren't as economically lucrative as the sciences (which are useful, too, but are also more useful to business).

I don't disagree that we need strong science and math and language education. I do disagree that we must somehow "make a choice" between the arts or the sciences, that we can't do both well and celebrate what they bring into the lives of people. Education is not simply about building a better worker. That's not the sort of life I want my children to have.

[themusicteacher]

Yes, because so much of the important music, drama, and literature in the world was created by high school students.

Yes, because so much of the important science and math was done by high school students.

[themusicteacher]

Skills in the arts are going to tend to come from private tutledge, apprenticeships, and lots of practice by the artist. Again, I really doubt that we're going to lose out on the next Mozart because public schools cut music programs. People who want to paint or write poetry will do it whether or not the high school offers them a course in it.

The same could be said for the sciences and math. You're argument cuts all ways. Music education in the schools are apprenticeships. Are you also advocating that we reserve good science education for the talented/motivated few? The truth is that people will not have the opportunity to explore in the arts or the sciences unless they have access and opportunity, even if they want to. I'm not sure what your obsession with cutting the arts is. Do you think teaching them takes away from "serious" study? Do you not think there are benefits to learing in the arts? If all you're concerned about is teaching people those things they need to function on a basic level, we should stop education at the 8th grade and send everyone to vocational school to learn a trade. Your view of a complete education is narrow and has a laser-like focus on technical/scientific knowledge and you seem to believe that those are the only important skills to have and everything else in life should be pursued at ones own interest and/or financial ability. I sincerely hope it never comes down to your worldview on education.

[AvalonXQ]

Yes, because so much of the important science and math was done by high school students.

Be careful to maintain the context of what you're quoting.
The quote I was responding to implied that removing arts education from public schools would halt the production of arts in the broader world. I believe that to be false. I also believe it would be false if someone implied that removing science and math education from public schools would halt the progress of science and math in the broader world. Anything past the barest essentials of these fields is not taught in high school, as it is -- and the fundamentals can easily be gained by private study. They would be.
However, I then would go further -- I assert that arts education in public schools is not particularly important to the production of great art in society. By contrast, I assert that science education in public schools is significantly more important to the progress of science in society.
I think this, as much as anything else, is why I'm willing to make the distinction between "core education" and "other".

[AvalonXQ]

My view of what priorities should be central to public education is very narrow. It doesn't mean I think we should cut all other programs; quite the contrary, I have always supported strong music and sports programs for schools. But I don't think that that's what school is for. I believe that science, language, reasoning, citenship, etc. are the primary purpose of public education while these other pursuits are secondary -- that a student who fails to engage in any of the primary subjects is educationally deficient while the student who fails to engage in one or more of the secondary subjects is not.

[Modified]

I'm in Texas, they are literally INSANE about kids sports.

They have High School and College stadia here that are better than most professional sporting teams. Grown men follow HS Football like it was the NFL. They have televised games!

When I lived in Alabama it was the same. On Fridays, all local six o'clock news was cut to five minutes, then they had thirty minutes of high school football news. Hearing grown men discuss high school football when they don't have a kid who plays was a bit disturbing. They weren't talking about college prospects either, just the games.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

As long as the school provides sufficient access to the internet, maintaining shelves of books are unnecessary. Physical libraries are becoming more and more of a relic as information is available in more convenient forms.
In many districts, cutting sports would help the budget exactly zilch, as the schools don't pay for sports. The parents, boosters, and fans do.

1. Not in my school district. We paid for our uniforms, that's it. School paid for anything else. We would do fund raisers for our trips to out of state sports events that involved traveling and accomodation.

2. Encyclopedias, atlases, and dictionaries make up a tiny percentage of a library's stock. The vast majority of books in print are not available online...at least not for free.


I would personally prefer to keep sports, arts, and libraries. I feel these are all things which are highly, highly beneficial to kids, which I am more than happy to pay taxes to maintain, depsite my not having any children myself. However, if it comes down to it, I agree that I would see school sports (not phys ed) cut before a library.

If, in your scenario, there is a school district in which the school's sports programs are not funded by the school, or are hardly funded by the school, then they would not be cut because there would be no point in cutting a program that the school is not paying for in the first plan, so it would have no bearing on the OP. Obviously the OP is talking about cost cutting measures in school. If you live in a district where the school does not pay for the maintanance of sports equipments and teams, transportation to and from events, etc (I have never heard of such a thing, but I will take your word that they exist), then they would not apply to the OP's premise that cutting sports teams is preferable to cutting school libraries in times of budgetary crisis, and should be excluded from the conversation.

Unless of course you're making the point that instead of closing down a sports team rather than a library, the school should instead turn to parents, boosters, local residents, and fans to pay for it themselves if they want to keep it functioning, rather than simply getting rid of it... in which case, I agree wholeheartedly.

edit** in addition, I would say that I would rather the city take a good hard look at it's budget and cut things other than public education funding, rather than making schools choose between music, sports, libraries, etc.

[Vic Vega]

I feel these are all things which are highly, highly beneficial to kids, which I am more than happy to pay taxes to maintain

That is the difference between you and many of your neighbors. Many of them are unwilling.

They are much more interested in the size of their own wallets than they are the quality of education that our children receive.

[blutoski]

Google was working on it, but ran into some legal issues.

I saw that a few years ago when they made big PR about it.

I actually suspect the legal issues are not the whole story - it may have been unlikely to monetize as well.



More recently, Nicholas Carr has been making the rounds with his concerns about the decline of books. His thesis is that reading books is more efficient if the objective is to learn the material.

[AvalonXQ]

I saw that a few years ago when they made big PR about it.

I actually suspect the legal issues are not the whole story - it may have been unlikely to monetize as well.

I'm quite familiar with the long, difficult legal battle that Google has been embroiled in with the larger publishers and the U.S. copyright system.
Trust me, the legal issues are enough. And they haven't abandoned the project yet.

[Dr. Keith]

I'm in Texas, they are literally INSANE about kids sports.

They have High School and College stadia here that are better than most professional sporting teams. Grown men follow HS Football like it was the NFL. They have televised games!

Back at my rathole in England, our school had no uniforms, groin cups, etc. It was the ultra basics, usually just a ball and a field.

I see the kids here riding in special buses and being worshipped like Demi-Gods. It...confuses me.

"My son plays tackle at Bedford High!"

I don't care, take down the massive lawn sign.

Hey, if you live in Bedford what else are you gonna brag about?

I mean the school district is named after a grocery store chain, after all.

(ducks and runs back to the safety of north-D suburb.)

[stilicho]

Have you never been to a school library? I'm not a librarian, so I won't even start to detail how wrong you are, but suffice it to say that just because you never benefited from a library does not mean others don't.

I'd move districts if ours even threatened to cut the libraries.

Really? The stadiums, the coaches, the uniforms, the buses, and other travel expenses? All covered by the parents, boosters and fans. That's some booster club you got there.

If the fans of libraries had the same level of devotion to their cause as sports fans do then there would be no quarrel. Those fond of libraries are cheap.

[Checkmite]

Devil's advocate:

1. Students have access to more and better information than can be obtained from the average school library via the web. I've been to several different schools in several different districts of various funding quality and one thing they all had in common was a pathetically understocked and woefully out-of-date library.

2. If you insist on paper books, local communities typically have full-service libraries with much larger and better resources and stock than any school library could dream of. These libraries are probably very close to schools.

3. School sports and physical activities programs are arguably the one single, thin strand keeping our two-thirds-obese country from becoming a three-thirds obese country.

[complexcontext]

Heard a discouraging report on the news this morning as I was driving. The gist of it was that a school board is considering closing the libraries of the schools, as they are categorized as "luxuries". Luxuries!

How have we gotten to such a state as this that books and libraries could even be considered a luxury? Yet every high school across the nation has multiple sport programs that surely cost taxpayers far more than libraries.

I'd rather see sport be eliminated from our school budget. It doesn't do anything to further an academic career. There are many non-school athletic programs that children can participate in if they choose. Yet when a school does cut an athletic program, typically a "minor" sport, like field hockey, there's a community uproar and hue and cry about the loss.

Inevitably, the first cuts are always to the arts; music, art, drama. Now we have to include libraries in this list of culturally expendable fields. Never mind that a society benefits far more from the arts and books/libraries than it does from its sporting events. So crazy, and so sad.

Where I went to high school, chess received little attention despite my team winning multiple 1st place awards. Our team location got repeatedly moved due to the sports programs the school paid for with our tuition costs...

Athletes in college and high school are now given easier alternative methods of grading to ensure that they can play and defend the school's "honor"...

A significant number of schools give their students permission to leave biology classroom if something that contradicts their faith is being presented...

What the **** has this world come to?

[blutoski]

Devil's advocate:

1. Students have access to more and better information than can be obtained from the average school library via the web. I've been to several different schools in several different districts of various funding quality and one thing they all had in common was a pathetically understocked and woefully out-of-date library.

I'm not sure this is true:

* as mentioned, due to copyright issues, most books are not available online - it's hard to accept that there is 'more' online.
* even if the titles are available online, the evidence is clear that online 'reading' is pathetically inferior to book reading, if the goal is to learn the material. I mentioned Carr's work in a previous post.
* interlibrary loans mean the the inventory onsite is not the limit of what is available - most public school librarians are able to borrow from the local university library, too


Also: this could be an argument to spend more money on school libraries, rather than an argument to close them down





2. If you insist on paper books, local communities typically have full-service libraries with much larger and better resources and stock than any school library could dream of. These libraries are probably very close to schools.

As mentioned, their inventory is usually available through interlibrary loan. The difference being mostly that a school library is more likely to contain academic materials immediately useful to the students.





3. School sports and physical activities programs are arguably the one single, thin strand keeping our two-thirds-obese country from becoming a three-thirds obese country.

For reasons that are not understood, the best research shows that students' participation in voluntary school sports or mandatory physed classes bears no correlation with childhood obesity rates.

See: Childhood obesity and schools: evidence from the national survey of children's health, J Sch Health. 2010 Feb;80(2):96-103.

[Malerin]

I've had students tell me HS sports is the only reason they even go to school. To play on the team, they have to maintain a 2.0, so they're getting some education at least. No student has ever told me they go to school because of the library.

If you want books, there's almost always a public library nearby. But if you want to play organized sports, esp. in a rural area, school is pretty much your only bet.

[blutoski]

I've had students tell me HS sports is the only reason they even go to school. To play on the team, they have to maintain a 2.0, so they're getting some education at least.

Why not just give them cash? I'll bet we could bribe these kids with less than it costs to operate sports teams.




No student has ever told me they go to school because of the library.

I believe that. Probably no student has told you they go to school for the blackboards or desks, either. They're all part of how schools operate to educate students, not a gimmick to keep them in class.



If you want books, there's almost always a public library nearby. But if you want to play organized sports, esp. in a rural area, school is pretty much your only bet.

I think that's probably true. That's why it's a difficult decision to make.

[Malerin]

Why not just give them cash? I'll bet we could bribe these kids with less than it costs to operate sports teams.

That could work, but it will probably cost too much money. As others have pointed out, sports programs don't cost districts that much money, and they provide an incentive for students who might otherwise see no reason to go to school. If you financially reward students for attendance or grades, you'll probably be rewarding a lot of students you don't really need to.

Conversely, if a parent's welfare check depended on their child going to school regularly, you would see attendance sky-rocket, at least in my neck of the woods.


I believe that. Probably no student has told you they go to school for the blackboards or desks, either. They're all part of how schools operate to educate students, not a gimmick to keep them in class.

You can easily run a school without a library. Due to budget cuts and moving from one school to another, my school didn't even have a library for half of the last year. The kids just went to the public library in town. It was inconvenient, but not terribly so. It would be much more inconvient to not have desks or whiteboards (haven't seen a blackboard in years).

But the OP is "cut sports rather than libraries". If your goal is to keep kids in school (in California, schools live and die based on attendance), you would cut libraries rather than sports, for the reasons I gave: there is already a public library (that invariably has more books and staff), and attendance won't drop just because the library is gone.



I think that's probably true. That's why it's a difficult decision to make.

We took a balanced approach: middle school sports were cut, my GATE program was cut, and the librarians' hours were cut in half. I really miss my GATE class. There are a ton of remedial programs in low-performing schools, but precious little for gifted kids.

[blutoski]

That could work, but it will probably cost too much money. As others have pointed out, sports programs don't cost districts that much money, and they provide an incentive for students who might otherwise see no reason to go to school. If you financially reward students for attendance or grades, you'll probably be rewarding a lot of students you don't really need to.

I think we can assume that the school districts that would be engaged in this debate would be the ones spending money on sports, otherwise there would not be an identified opportunity to save.

As you can imagine, we would have to examine this in terms of the spending in the districts in question, and we'd have to understand what portion of the students are attending merely to preserve their sports eligibility.

Unfortunately, further to this, there are a lot of students who lost interest when music, metal shop, and painting programs were closed, too. The question being, then, why sports is somehow sacred.






You can easily run a school without a library. Due to budget cuts and moving from one school to another, my school didn't even have a library for half of the last year. The kids just went to the public library in town. It was inconvenient, but not terribly so. It would be much more inconvient to not have desks or whiteboards (haven't seen a blackboard in years).

But the OP is "cut sports rather than libraries". If your goal is to keep kids in school (in California, schools live and die based on attendance), you would cut libraries rather than sports, for the reasons I gave: there is already a public library (that invariably has more books and staff), and attendance won't drop just because the library is gone.

Understood, but this is assuming that the number of students that would be preserved is significant, and secondly, that preserving attendance of students who are not interested in school is a valuable goal.





We took a balanced approach: middle school sports were cut, my GATE program was cut, and the librarians' hours were cut in half.

This is normal. The problem emerges when programs get to their minimum threshold budget to be functional. Reducing 10% further across the board gives you 0 benefit at 90% of the cost. So, often it does make sense to dissolve one program entirely.




I really miss my GATE class. There are a ton of remedial programs in low-performing schools, but precious little for gifted kids.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the thought is that the social cost of not supporting the marginal students is significantly greater than the social cost of not supporting the gifted kids. That there are greater returns from money spent supporting marginal students.

[Malerin]

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the thought is that the social cost of not supporting the marginal students is significantly greater than the social cost of not supporting the gifted kids. That there are greater returns from money spent supporting marginal students.

I'm sure that's it. Gifted students will thrive with or without a program dedicated to them. It just strikes me as sad that the only after-school programs we run are to help struggling students. But they're good programs that need to be in place.

[Nosi]

The current copyright system blocking online access to printed books is causing more harm than good in this age of library killing. Most of the older books should be online & accessible in online libraries for kids, such as Cat In The Hat and Green Eggs & Ham. Publish them in copyrighted PDF'S if you must!

[bluescat48]

Out of curiosity, did you play any sports while in school?

No, but when one is vying for a spot on a team consisting of 40 players (football), 12 players (basketball, hockey, swimming) or 15 players (baseball) and their are over 250 boys in the school, one must be one of the best just to make 3rd string in football not to mention even making any of the other teams.
I was not the "athletic type." The only time I was ever on an organized team was in 5th grade (basketball & baseball).:(