First of all I will start by saying that I do not consider myself a sports fan. (more of a girlie girl), but having 2 boys I have been swept into the world of sports. My boys (11&12) have been in many sports in which the coach VOLUNTEERED!!! Yep the coaches did ALL of the COACHING for FREE. We still paid a fee of aprox $100.00 per sport per child in addition to equipment (shoes, bags, gloves, the list goes on). We are in no means rich, but we plan for the sports that they want to play, budget our money, skip going out to eat... Even with the hard times of our economy I would be willing to pay for the middle school sports (high school when they get there). I was hoping that someone could answer a question for me. Who pays the teachers who coach middle & high school sports? Do our taxes pay for them? Seems to me that Janesville has people that would be willing to volunteer to coach these sports. A background check and a coaching class could be set up, and still save the district lots of $$$$!!! Not that I would make a good coach(no sports knowledge), but I would sign up to volunteer so would my husband.

mgcarguy...I'm not poor, and if I were and if I had grandchildren who were they would be able to play...they would have it reduced or given a scholarship. I work for the district you twit, so I do know that to be the case. Now you have a nice day....

With all of the sports discussion, will other areas have to pay to participate? Here is a hypothetical example:

Sports are extra-curricular activities that use school facilities and have uniforms, equipment, practices, games, and charge admission.

School plays are extra-curricular activities that use school facilities and have costumes, props, practices, performances, and charge admission.

I don't see much difference in these two types of school-related activities, but I have not seen anything brought up about charging students who participate in school plays. Does this seem fair?

If you can explain a difference between sports and school plays and why one is charged for participation and the other isn't, I would love to hear it because I don't see a difference (other than sports require the fees to be paid and school plays don't).

Might be a good marketing opportunity for local businesses to donate money to either offset costs or to sponsor fees for a set amount of spots for kids from low income families.

increase in sports fees are probably necessary, and I know it will deter some parents from having their children play. Our board needs to start getting creative in finding more money to fund the sports however. Most big eight teams have business advertisement. why dont we? not only sports, but are all the extra curriculars going to have a fee too?

Why not give each sport the option to do fund raising as opposed to paying for the sport? Just as in band classes for trips they like to go on. Or maybe the booster clubs supporting such sport?

Dkush...you are so right. Schools are for educating children. In this economy, yes...extracurricular areas should be effected first.

Oh boo hoo. My kid plays hockey and that sport costs us, out of pocket, about $1000 per year. Suck it up. What's more important, sports or your kid's education???

I'm starting to get the feeling that people's priorities are all screwed up. Everyone is pissed at the teachers who are teaching our children, but don't you dare say anything about having to pay for sports.

Just like it is our duty to pay for the Ice Hockey Arena, right?

What does the public unions have to do with sports? It is the taxpayers who are willing to pay for a child's EDUCATION! Since when did it become our duty to pay for the extra curricular activities? This is the parent's responsiblity, not the taxpayers.

It's easy to downplay the importance of sports in a school's curriculum. Bit by bit, the students around here will lose a lot of the secondary benefits offerred at school simply because they have no representation. The public unions will gladly sacrifice your child's well-beign in order to survive.

Thank you Luvujvl! Apparently here it is that important! More important than to have decent teachers with living wages. Also, some people have nothing better to do than to correct your spelling or verbage instead of coming up with a valid response to the issues. Kind of childish if you ask me.

Leadership and other job skills can be learned from many different places - parents, extended family, the classroom, church groups, volunteer organizations, music groups, gym class - if, by some slim chance, someone misses out on the chance to be on a sports team, they're not going to necessarily be a complete failure in life. "He won't learn that it is in his own best interest to make sure that everyone is successful in Biology." That's a load. He will when it's group project time and his grade is riding on it. Sports are great - they give kids plenty of positive things. But saying that sports teams are the most important part of a kid's future and "a microcosm of culture" seems a bit dramatic.

Commenter’s who say participation will be down, or now people will not be able to afford sports, are not familiar with them. The fees are just a scratch at the surface of the cost of sports to parents and players. A baseball or softball bat is $400 and up. Cleats run $60 and up, and you need different kinds for different sports. The costs go on and on, but any kid who wants to play will be playing. Coaches and parents find a way to get that kids fees and equipment taken care of. Have faith in your neighbors, everyone is not on their own. I hate just about everything about Hillary Clinton, but I agree that it takes a village to raise the children, let the village help.

----------------------------------------------------------
What is the quickest way to turn a large fortune into a small one? Buy a race car.

dkush21, as an FYI, the word "sports" is a plural noun. Like the great Dubya once asked, "Is our children learning"?

And yes, last time I checked, schools were for learning. Sports is not the only activity that teaches a child competiveness in this world.

I never said that sports was not important in a kids life. I said that we did fine paying our own way when I was in school. everyone seems to think that taxpayers should have to foot the bill for their children. Have fundraisers, mow lawns, do chores for someone who needs the help. There are numerous ways to make money to pay for extra curicular activities that a child may want to participate in. We did it when I was young and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way we were raised. Absolutely nothing wrong with the way we raised money for our own pleasures.

And thank you Vigilandy- the 15% statistic is misleading, as they are comparing two sets of numbers. Many of the arguments below are less valid when you change 15% to 50%.

dkush21, the fact that you believe learning and sports are somehow different things illustrates exactly what is wrong with a large part of this country. When that kid goes out into the real world and gets a job, he will rely on the skills he learned in sports (teamwork, sacrifice, common goals, etc) will be as valuable if not more so than what he retains from his math, history, literature and science courses. He won't learn how to lead in Math class. He won't learn that it is in his own best interest to make sure that everyone is sucessful in Biology. He won't learn that, even when you give 100%, sometimes you still loose in French class. The reason games are so important in our culture is that they are a microcosm of culture. I'm sorry you don't understand that.

The problem is how you define "poor". There are lots (the majority, in fact) of families that either make enough that they wouldn't qualify for free/reduced lunches or have a little pride left and don't apply for every handout out there, but simply can't swing hundreds of dollars in fees to watch their kid sit on a bench.

Before adding the savings to the budget, you might consider asking the parents how many students will still be willing and able to play after this change. I suspect the reduced coaching staff won't have a problem, as participation will drop by at least that much.

The irony is that, in the real world, sporting is inversely proportional to income. Kids without an XBOX, cable TV and air conditioning are far more likely to be outside kicking a ball than our kids. Why punish the ones who actually try?

I say we flip it: everybody pays $300 up front, and the more extracurriculars (sports, music, chess club, whatever) you try, you get a rebate. You don't have to be good at it, but you have to make the effort to find something you can do that isn't all about you, some way to actually participate and interact with other people that forces you out of your insulated, self-centered universe.
Teaching teamwork is good for the student, but the real benefit is to society at large. If that's not self-evident, we're all screwed anyhow.

Koch_Bros, good point. Not that you need it, but your grand kids may actually have a chance at a D-1 scholarship now, and all the X-Box playing won't hurt them a bit.

They only offer sports at the middle and high school levels. 1,330 high school athletes are about 50% of the high school population at both schools. There are no stats listed in this article relating to the percentage of elementary school athletes because they probably play club sports. The other 50% get involved in various other ways at the schools.

Ezoner: Thank you! You hit it on the nail. Now some people think that they are owed fun and other things, without making an effort to work for it. If I wanted something bad enough, I found a way to earn money so I could have it. What are we teaching our kids today? Don't worry Son, we will complain loud enough till the taxpayer's pay for your fun! Nothing like spoiling your kids rotten and teaching them that everything will be handed to them in a silver platter without having to work for it. It's no wonder why kids today are lazy and spoiled.

We have definitely become a spoiled nation!

gogreen61: Really! I and millions of others have never had a problem making our own fun when we were growing up. And guess what?! It cost us near to nothing. I am so sick and tired of whiny people who claim the kids have nothing to do. There are parks, there are backyards, movie theaters or rentals, etc. My Grandson can't wait till the weather finally breaks so he can go outside with neighbors to play ball. Kids are resilient, they know how to make their own fun. It's the parents who complain more than anything.

Most of you parents dont get it..... at all.

I played in 3 to 4 sports per year. Worked weekends at an A&W stand. Managed the stand at one point. Later managed a small resturant....

I now have a daughter that drives a race car.... you think $675 is expensive.... the last wreck cost me $1k..... You cant even touch my expenses. We give up vacations, we give up movies, we basically have fun at the sport..... thats what its about, its about the kid. If you or the kid really wants to play, you will find a way.

WOW gogreen - What has changed? How about a budget crisis. You're suggesting that if kids don't play sports, they'll automatically turn to drinking and doing drugs? What about the 85% who don't play sports in the first place? Are you insinuating that that's all they do? That's beyond insulting.

When I was in High School, we had to pay for our sports if we wanted to play or watch. Sports has nothing to do with school education. Kids are in school to learn, not to play sports and taxpayers to foot the bill. If you can't afford it, find ways to make money by delivering newspapers, cutting neighbor's grass, or doing other kind of chores to make the money. Physical education, though, is good for the kids and there are lots of ways to get physical education without having to spend alot of money.

I have no problem with extra sports fees. If/when my children are old enough to join a sport, I think it's fair that we should pay for it. Either we'd find somewhere in the budget to fit it in, or the kids would have to get a part-time job to help pay for it.
.
Sure, it might seem unfair that some kids have parents who can afford anything their little heart desires, and some don't, but that's life. I want a new car but I don't have the money laying around so I'll have to save for it. I want a bigger house but don't have the extra money to pay for it so I'll have to wait a little while. It's no fun, but that's just the way things are.

This will cut back significantly on participation. Imagine paying $675 for your kid to sit on the bench! Yet another slam on the middle class. Those earning a little less get a break...those earning a little more can afford it.

@ RAF(10:20 AM) ..... Brilliant ! A novel idea!

The only thing I disagree with is that one sport is penalized becasue it does not draw revenue. Golfers and hockey players pay more than football. All fees should be the same. All the revenue for sports should be shared equally, as well as the pain for payment.

The one big problem with this "sports" paradigm that these public schools seem to lean on is that some kids have no interest whatsoever in sports.
There are countless other ways to build character in young people other than sports.
It is unconscionable that all the other ways are pretty much ignored.
And "sports scholarship" is an oxymoron, but yet it exists.

Molly49: If you were referring to me not being able to read, you might be correct. I did miss a couple of things in the article. I missed the word scholarship and I have re-read the article eight times and still cannot find it in there. Help me out O-great reader whomever you are. I will count down from the top line, or word by word in an effort to find that word. Another word I have a lot of trouble with is lol whatever that word is. Until you are perfect try to restrain yourself from critising others. I hope someday you are poor and have grandchildren who do not have the fee to play their favorite sport. Laughing out loud myself.

why do you continue to say "poor" kids won't be able to play? If you read the article it states that they will get to at a reduced amount or a scholarship will be given! Read people read...oh I know you were too busy playing a sport to learn to read....lol

Every president I can think of was an athlete. Every supervisor in my 50 years of work has either been an athlete or had a strong intrest in sports. A pay for play plan will not work for poor people. Kids who give a full effort to school and sports simply don't have the time to work at McDonalds. Many parents who are together and are each working a full time job still cannot afford a pay to play plan. Until I was 70 years old and I became a volunteer probation officer I did not think sports was that important. Now I feel it is just as important as academics.

Pay pay pay...get use to it. Salaries and benefits are going down and everything else is going up. Sooner or later there will be no money anywhere for sports, drama, arts, band, you name it. We have to get back to normal fiscal spending. Please vote for Tea Party candidates. They have a clear message. It’s not the same Red and Blue approach. Think about it. Let’s say 2 of us could run the country the way we wanted. I like to help the rich and you like to help the poor. Let’s just take turns and get everything we want. A huge over reaching government that is not listening. Wear your seat belt, don’t smoke there, pay pay pay.

Funny how when an activity is connected with a school, its supposed to be "free".
Parents whose kids choose activities not connected with the school have to pay for it themselves.
.
And, I want to know WHY someone getting free lunch would get free sports.

Make every sport a club sport.

Low-income high school students would continue to get a break. Families that qualify for reduced-price lunch would pay 20 percent of the total cost. Families that qualify for free lunch would pay no fee.

Only the poor and rich will be three sport athletes.

Why not take another 10% of teacher's salaries to cover the sporting events? After all, they're working only a few hours a day, 6 months of the year, and have the entire summer off. Every conservative knows how easy teaching is. LOL!

Anytime someone is asked to pay for something that they have been getting for next to nothing (in some cases nothing) you are going to have a ton of opposition. Sports are incredibly important at all age levels. The life lessons and leadership skills that are learned are extremely valuable. Though, at some point in time they become a privilege and not a right. High school seems, to me, to be an appropriate level to make the transition from a right (everyone plays) to a privilege (tryouts/cuts and higher fees).
.
It sounds like financial assistance is being offered to those in need. I am sure many can make an argument to “needing” assistance more than they did 5 years ago. Few actually (IMO) need this assistance. If sports in high school is something that is truly important to you, then it is time to take a good hard look at your discretionary spending. Do you need a $150/month cell phone plan? Do you need a TV package that includes 60 movie channels in HD, DVR, and 13 weather channels? Do you need internet (it’s free at the library from what I hear)? That’s cool if you do, but you should also probably make a list of priorities and figure out where your child’s athletics fit in.
.
Incase people haven’t noticed, government assistance to the schools has taken a huge hit. That’s what the papers say anyway.
.
Sports are very important to me. If making some sacrifices on my end means that my kid has the opportunity to play sports then I will make sacrifices. I was fortunate enough to participate in sports year round when I was in high school. I know how valuable it was to me. Times have changed and I’ll “gladly” (take that with a grain of salt) make sacrifices for my child.

Because this one didn't teach me to spell very well. hehe

Or just move to another scholl district which is the recommended action.

So....it's more important that "Johnny" play a sport than it is for him to learn to read???? Everyone is OK with cutting teaching postions but oh my when it's suggested that if your child wants to play a sport, parents will have to pay, all heck breaks loose! Gotta pay to play people.

For those of you who seem to not read the article to its entirety, FREE LUNCH recipients will receive FREE SPORTS FEES AND SURCHARGES. Those on REDUCED LUNCH will RECEIVE REDUCED COSTS. I think this is very fair and considerate of SDJ to do this. This is only fair that folks start paying some of this cost. Any extra curricular activity should have fees associated with it. What fund are all of these fees and surcharges going in to? That is another question that probably will go unanswered. Probably in tot he "rainy day" fund!.!.!?.?

"If a [BLANK] cant afford it, maybe the [BLANK] could get a job at Mcd's or somewhere...and pay for their own [BLANK]."
-
Interesting theory, maybe this could be applied elsewhere is society.

They need to start a sports fund for those that cannot pay a sports fee. The public, business sponsors and fundraiser could more than carry the load.

As a HUGE advocate of sports , this is a very necessary evil. If a students parents cant afford it, maybe the student could get a job at Mcd's or somewhere during the summer and pay for their own athletics. Unfortunately with the failure of our school board's decision(s) to not tax to the max we have lost additional matching state funding. While I think sports are great for kids, acedemics are FAR more important. 15% of the kids participate in sports, should the other 85% suffer because of this? Sports is an extra curricular activity, you can argue about lack of role models all you like but unfortunately it is NOT the job of the district to raise kids. It's the parents. (ugh I sound like a repub)
If cuts are to be made it should be to extra curriculars, not teachers, not curriculum. People that care about the future of the city of Janesville and the kids here shouldn't be opposed to paying a little more in taxes, your rates are already low!
N24- You have been given an example of how your constant arguements about food service are WRONG! Times were different in the 1990's, the economy was good! What on Earth would make anyone believe it would work now, when it failed during a prosperous economy. Wake up Cass or should we just call you Sybil? NO ONE but you believe in your ideas, so please go away. Your food service ideas are about as well founded as your ideas about union dues. You have OBVIOUS lack of knowledge of reality and continue to spout blather that makes ZERO sense. You make those that seem to hold similar viewpoints with valid points, look REALLY bad. Make some new arguements, being a repeater doesnt make you right.

kidlets: Sorry, I should have clarified. The fundraising that you're talking about is a general fundraiser that goes into a large fund for all sports. I'm talking about letting the sports fundraise for their specific sport so that the self sufficient ones can stand on their own.

wando they do fundraise. My son does a fundraiser every year for football.

momof5: That's kind of what I was thinking, but reconditioning is also a safety matter. They reinspect any damage to ensure that the helmets are safe to use another year. I can't imagine these inspections take less time for a "middle school helmet". Additionally, there isn't really much physical damage done to helmets, it is more a matter of repainting them. Again, there is no reason that it should cost more for a "high school helmet" than a "middle school helmet".

Here's a novel idea, why doesn't the district let each sport fundraise? They will only give the ok on fundraising if there is a special trip or competition that a team is traveling to. I think it is safe to say that there are sports that would be self sufficient (in terms of raising enough money to cover any additional pay-to-play fees) based on fund raising alone. Or how about selling naming rights for sporting facilities to local businesses on a yearly contract? I'm not personally a big fan of naming rights, but they would bring in a few thousand to help offset the cost of sports.

There should be a family cap on this, however. Madison schools have been charging for years. It is about time!

Wando: I would guess that it costs more for a HS helmet vs MS helmet because the kids are bigger in HS, hit harder (and more) and play more games against bigger and harder hitting opponents.

Gmaof3: Reconditioning is buffing out the scratches, resurfacing any dents, putting in any new pads that may be worn/damaged, repairing chin straps and just general disinfecting. It is a lengthy--and expensive process.

With only 15% of students participating in sports, and either reduced fees or no fees for lower income kids, hopefully this won't affect very many.....perhaps Save Janesville Schools could set aside some funds to assist those students who are caught in the middle of this?

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. The state is required to provide public education...not free sports participation opportunities.

This seems very reasonable to me and long overdue.

There are a lot of kids in Janesville who have but one real role model, their coach. Coaches have helped a lot of boys and girls get strait and stay strait both on the playing field and then in the classroom. There is a boy in a small town near where we live whose father killed a man recently with a two by four. The father will spend the rest of his life in prison. Both the mom and the dad are meth addicts.
The boy will be living with his mom but he will be raised by his coach and his coach will do what he can to make sure the boy gets in to a college after high school. This is not an isolated story. It is a story of many boys and girls and coaches all over. Sports is every bit as important in education as academics. There are a lot of kids who have grown up to be good because of sports being part of the overall school life. There must be other places where the school system can save some money other than cutting into the school sports. I hate to see what is happening in Janesville. Cutting out what is most important to many kids is going to be very costly in the future.

Forcing teachers to throw down for their own benefits ... priceless.

3MTA3 I wish I could say what I really want but my post would get removed. If these less than fortunate children want to get involved in sports then I guess your referral of them being on their lazy butts wouldn't make sense. Where do you get off thinking because someone is poor, makes them lazy? And if you are referring to their parents being lazy, why should a kid be penalized for something that is not in their control? You sound like the most heartless person I have ever heard of and your post is sickening. You need to step down of your high horse.

Should there be consideration for revenue sports? For example if football carries it's weight in ticket sales, should football athletes pay extra to subsidize golf or other non revenue sports?

Poor kids only have to pay 20% of the cost? No way I should be subsidizing their lazy butts. Their parents are probably government-sponging liberals anyway.

The world needs ditch diggers, too.

Yeah,MAKE THEM PAY!! Sports are the real luxury we don't need in public education. If it were me I would cancel school sponsored sports altogether.

N24, they outsourced food service back in the '90s and lost money. I think it was some wingding national company like Marriott. They had to subsidize the food service fund with the general fund. Which is why it's done in-house now, and it pays for itself.
-- Gazette reporter Frank Schultz

I'm not against "pay to play" but what about the parents who lay out the bucks, only to watch their kid sit the bench? If the BOE institutes a "pay to play" agenda, will in include mandatory playing time for all? I doubt it.

Hey Cass, or is it N24 now. Really, why don't you keep the same name, we all see it is you immediately. Sheesh! Anyway back to what really matters. Why don't the sports fees go to the sports programs (they go into a general fund). Atheltic fees should pay for athletics.

A closer read of the article states that students who receive free or reduced lunch would pay a reduced cost: 20% for reduced lunch students, free for free lunch students. That should help low-income families, of which 40-50% (if my memory serves me) of Janesville families are, pay for sports.
Girls hockey is a sport with at least Beloit players, though I believe more of Rock County is involved.

N24-we get it. You think the JEA should pay for members out of dues, and the food service and custodial staff should be outsourced. If you feel that strongly about this, you and your multiple online personalities should go to a school board meeting and discuss the savings data with the board. Otherwise, can you come up with something new?

luvujanesville: It may appear that it is more fair for those families to have to chip in, but it's really not. These surcharges are going to force the less wealthy students off of our sports teams, and make room for those who come from wealthier families, regardless of their playing abilities. Fair is not a word I'd use to describe that.

The savings assumes that the same number of kids go out for these sports next year. Even for the kids that can afford to continue to be involved, club sports will become more prevalent, and the numbers involved in the district will continue to go down. That will save more money until sports are eventually eliminated.

Fabulous ! If sports participation really does cost that much per player, it's more than fair to have the families chip in.

This is a good idea. Parents shell out a lot of money for their kids to play sports when they are little. Then when they get to high school the same parents all of a sudden complain about having to pay 50 or 60 dollars per sports.

Well, it will be interesting to see how this works for hockey. Currently there is a trade off between the city and the school district for the ice fees. So once again, these fee's are being set, but the money doesn't really go to the cost of the sport, but to the general fund. I have no problem paying fees, but shouldn't they go to the actual cost of the sport and not just what board members feel they can get out of the parents?

At a previous school board meeting, the girls hockey parents asked to transport their own student athletes because the bus time was so long--if I remember correctly, they had to transport their child to Beloit to get on the bus?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was something like that.

What is helmet reconditioning? I honestly do not know what that is... (I raised girls...)

Can you say lawsuit...only the girls hockey members have to pay for transportation, but the boys don't... Discrimination at its finest. Sorry but the district will be in court over that one big time.

Why a proposal that only girl hockey players - and not the boys as well - need to provide their own transportation? On the surface without an explanation (and perhaps even with one), this is simply wrong and sends a very poor, not so subtle, message to the girls.

$120 for a middle schooler to golf? Most of the kids don't even have money for golf clubs and have to use old sets. The poor students will not be able to participate in many of the seasons unless a lot of scholarships are available.

Why would it cost less to recondition a helmet for a middle school athlete than it would for a high school athlete?

Question, do boys hockey players have to furnish their own transportation.