SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Junior Varsity Soccer Fort Mill to drop middle school sports

http://www.heraldonline.com/2010/02/24/1969051/school-district-to-field-boys.html
Here is the article.

I don't agree with that either. But the deal was that the sport be totally self sufficient and my understanding is that lacrosse has done so with fundraising, etc. Won't cost the taxpayers a dime.

Then that option should be available to all sports (JV B team for soccer, middle school basketball or football). They opened a can of worms again.

I was reading a recent Newsweek article in my thinking room the other day and there was a quote about Washington, that leaders from both parties are terrified to ask America to make short term sacrifices in exchange for long term benefits. Got me thinking.....

I feel the same way about how the paradigm of school sports has evolved. Schools should be focussing on teaching our kids. Teaching them facts, teaching them theories, teaching them problem solving, teaching them critical thinking, teaching them to write and speak coherently.

Not Northwestern vs. Irmo (oops.....IRMO).

I love HS sports (and MS sports!!!). Actually, I love sports period. However, I feel that culturally we've crossed a threshold here recently......and if we're going to be successful we need to pick and choose how we spend/invest. Our education dollars need to go to education, not sports. Teachers....not coaches. Libraries and IT facilities.....not stadiums and gyms. While I understand the value and joy of sport, I feel we risk diluting our focus and our resources with school sports in general.

Thoughts like this sound crazy....but I'm unaware of schools in other countries offering a vast array of sports and spending the kind of money we do on school sports. The Japanese, Chinese, and Indians are most certainly not.

Will we run from short term sacrifice? Probably.

Maybe for NAFO but I seem to recall someone pointing out that the Gold Hill girls would, for the most part, not make the JV at FM. I'll have to find the thread and reread it.

When it is a matter of teachers or sports I think there is no question teachers 1st!

As for growing the sport, well we all have different opinions on that. IMHO, if you think club soccer will "grow" the sport beyond where it is now I think you are on the wrong track. How many friends and neighbors come out for your kids club games on weekends? (pretty much none!) The only people I see at the complexes every weekend are the same parents with the players brothers and sisters (sure a friens once in a reare while but come on).

School sports bring out the school and community. No, I know soccer does not turn out like FB but, if we promoted the sport/teams better (like Friday night games!!!) we could build a better fan base.

The teams at the middle schools are doing as much or more to grow the sport in the local area than the clubs are in the area of raising awareness amoung the kids.

As for "marginally talented players" both FMMS and GHMS took it to 3A and 4A JV teams in IRMO. There are highly skilled girls on both those teams who are improving the skills of the other girls by playing with them. Many of the 7th/8th graders would never make JV, and then by time they get to 9th they would likely not try out again or not have improved enough to make it then. The benefit to the HS program is that over time they get more players who have more playing time. Also consider that as more kids see middle school as a sport they can play the more likely they are to play rec/club soccer to help their chances of making the school team.

Well said, and I echo most of the thoughts you express! The problem, at least as I see it, is how did we get here? The funding problem has a root cause! What was behind the changes in the taxes? My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) was that the Pol's were trying to level the field (money wise) across the state by taking local tax money out of the system and going to a more centerally funded schools. This would hurt school district who had higher value (see as income) and boost funding to those districts that had lower value. Wonder how those school districts are doing in this fiscal crunch?
I guess a lowering tide must be lowering all boats?

This is a great discussion. In thinking about what exactly is the role of the school, there are lots of viewpoints. Most of us would agree that the primary job of the school is to educate students for their future roles in the community (or somewhere on the grid, now that the world is flat). Their education should equip them to think creatively, logically, coherently, and from various perspectives to be able to handle what life throws at them. I am not trying to open the debate about whether we need to educate them for the work force or for higher learning, but let's just say they need to be prepared for future challenges. As technology and jobs are changing so rapidly today, it is not prudent to think we can teach them to use the technology they will use in the future. We have to teach them to think and equip them with some of the skills they will need to problem solve these future challenges.

So besides the cognitive side of the role of the school, there are also the social side and the citizen side. In order to become a well rounded person, students need to develop all three of these at a minimum. The students need some exposure to PE and athletics in order not to become too rounded:) The students have to be able to function socially and be able to communicate their ideas with others. Most classrooms have structured social interactions, but think about how the real world operates. I believe athletics not only helps fill this role by providing the concept of team and being a teammate, but it also helps foster leadership. This is especially true for those students who do not necessarily thrive in a classroom environment, but who have other gifts/strengths. Where do athletics come in to play? How important is it to this mission of the schools? Historically, sports were not included in the early schools but they sure have taken a featured role in our culture over the last 50 years.

Different districts handle the financial pressures in different ways. While Fort Mill is looking at cutting Middle School athletics, Kershaw last year decided to cut its Gifted and Talented program and fine arts coordinator and some others in order to preserve middle school athletics. Don't tell me those programs won't suffer without competent leadership of a knowledgeable educator. Is this the right call?

If we are not careful, not only will school districts be looking at cutting athletics but so will our legislature. Do we think athletics are critical to the mission of schools? Or is it just a glorified baby sitting service with structured activities? Or does the local recreation department, YMCA, or soccer club offer sufficient activities to build the game of soccer? Are these opportunities available to all financially? Don't think the economy has not impacted these organizations and what they are able to offer.

In "these times" every penny counts. It is important for all of us not only to have these discussions here, but also with our local school boards, local elected officials, state legislators, and national legislators. We need to let them know where we stand on this issue. These are tough times and in tough times, especially, we need to take a stand. So where do you stand?

We really need to revise the whole taxation structure in SC to help prevent these drastic measures from repeating themselves in the future. I asked many questions hypothetically here to get you thinking. What I am really saying is we need to advocate for education, tax structure (a total re-write), and for the role of athletics as a part of our culture in South Carolina. It is sure better than having a bunch of kids with a ton of free time on their hands!

Dawg,

So far we've paid a $75 participation fee, a $22 sock fee, a $20 practice tshirt fee, are expected to provide a team meal for 20 (which will likely cost in excess of $100), and need to pony up another $5 for an unallocated meal.

I figure HS soccer for my daughter to cost me about $220 this Spring in direct costs.

Plus we're expected to do the obligatory concessions at a football game and a basketball game...join the Booster club, etc.

You ask if everyone could afford to play a decent rec level soccer if school soccer didn't exist. My take is......it would be a whole lot LESS expensive to do so. I wonder how families who are stuggling deal with the expense of HS soccer?

There are a million benefits to my daughter and her mates who play HS soccer. Thats not the point. The two relevant points are: first, in a time of extremely limited funding does it make sense to divert finite resources to athletics? And two, do schools hurt themselves in the long run by allowing the focus of their mission (educating our children) to be expanded into areas only peripherally relevant to the mission?

Teaching fitness and offering PE and nutrition is directly relevant, IMO. Having a football team or a basketball team or a soccer team....I don't see it.