Several people have mentioned this "general" fund that currently has 30+million dollars in it. They have also mentioned that a variety of things go into this fund (athletic fees and teacher's self funded health care premiums for example). If true, it would seem like a very poor accounting practice to have a fund that is so mixed. Why dont athletic fees go into an athletic fund and health care premiums go into a separate fund? It would make it very easy to see which portions of the budget are under-funded and which ones are over-funded. The conspiricy theorist in me thinks this is an easy way to hide money and confuse the truth.

There are many children who won't qualify for the fee waiver but whose families are in the higher, low income bracket. Also, Taxpayers pay for our children's books but they aren't their children. And as for music, the instruments ARE paid for by the parents. Instruction is paid for by the district.

yeah.
like any GM families can afford this.
i know i certainly can't.

Never played sports in school, although now wish I had because maybe things would have been different for me...
Anyway, the kids are our future and it takes a whole society to raise them right! Whether you have kids or not...adults in the community should should support, mentor and protect the kids....doesn't matter who was responsible for placing them here on this earth. That is what society and civilization is all about.
And when we are old and can no longer care for ourselve (yep...can you imagine having that supposed snot nose kid down the block being the one to feed you your supper or wash your butt???)the children in our society will be caring for us. They will be paying the taxes and providing the services to benefit us! Some will grumble and think we are a burden...others will care for us lovingly with all the respect due to an elder in society.

If you want new companies to bring jobs to Janesville, you'd better have a strong sports program in your schools. People can tell me I am crazy, but I would bet my last dollar on this one.

If you have kids in school who want to participate in sports.. that's wonderful but it's up to the parents to pay any fees associated with that and not yet more put on the taxpayers. If you have kids that play musical instruments, I do expect you to pay for those instruments as well and not expect tax payers to provide those. They are your kids not mine.

lakennedy - I agree. "Playing with a ball" is perhaps the nuts and bolts of any sport, but it is much more than that if we look beyond the end of our noses. It is teamwork, pride, being part of a positive group, learning that "it's not all about you", so many good things come from team sports. Many student-athletes excel in many ways above and beyond what they would have achieved without that experience. Parker football promotes WTST - Work Together, Stay Together. They produce not just good athletes, but young men who are committed to each other and to their school community, and to themselves with a sense of belonging and pride. Grades improve, social lives improve, self esteem improves, the entire high school experience improves. At the first player & parent meeting for Parker football freshmen, we were told point blank by Coach Dye that the number one objective of Parker football is to enhance these boys lives in a positive way and enhance their character to make them positive role models for society and to help them be good people overall - winning some football games is great, more power to ya, but affecting these boys in a positive way and building their character is more important. Other sports and other schools, I'm sure, have similar goals and similar results. Reducing all of that to "playing with a ball" just doesn't cut it.

Charge me whatever fee you want. I'm in. It's worth it to me to have my children involved in such a positive atomosphere with caring coaches who are trying to help parents produce young adults of positive character and values.

"Think long and hard what these athletes will turn to when they can no longer afford to play sports. It's not like there is an overabundance of jobs right now for anyone, let alone for high school students."
.

"And for families who can’t afford it, the district would continue to waive the fee."

wahoo_: Think long and hard what these athletes will turn to when they can no longer afford to play sports. It's not like there is an overabundance of jobs right now for anyone, let alone for high school students. While you see kids just "playing with a ball", I see kids learning how to work together toward a common goal. I see kids learning discipline and taking a bit of pride in themselves. I also see kids working hard to secure a scholarship so that they can afford to go to college. There is a lot more to sports then just "playing with a ball".

I agree with Stottler 100%! If you want to play, you should have to pay! We spend way to much money so kids can play with a ball. We should relook at what is the best way to spend money. Which is really more imortant, learning to play with ball or helping a child with special needs to lead a better life.

HATS OFF TO YOU, Coach Reif, and others in similar positions who share your values. It is positive role models like you who make a difference in the lives of many families. Thank you.

Regarding the "slush fund" - that is such a confusing matter. I believe someone from the School Board (or representative - accountant, auditor, whomever) should step up and make an effort to educate our community on how their accounting system really works. Let's take a look at their annual audit report and have somebody translate it into English.

replied privately to why teach because this is NOT the place for it

Mr. Reif,
Sorry if you don't want to talk about the insurance issue but read your words, "My question is this? Where does the $50 my kids pay now go? To the athletic fund, NO. It goes into the general fund, where it sits in the $32 MILLION slush fund. Tell me how a kid needs to come up with an extra $250 to go into the general fund that has $32 MILLION extra."
jqpublic nailed it right on the head. This is exactly the same thing as the teachers paying premiums. Where does that money go? Into the insurance fund set aside for teachers insurance? No. It goes into the general fund, where it sits in the $32 MILLION slush fund. Tell me how a teacher needs to come up with an extra $? to go into the general fund that has $32 MILLION extra. It is the exact same thing whether you can set your pride aside or not and admit that the union voted the wrong way on this issue. People on this board are doing everything in their power to increase this fund while still cutting programs.

"And for families who can’t afford it, the district would continue to waive the fee."

How many sports will kids unable to pay the fee be able to play. It seems they will be the only three sport kids since theirs is subsidized.

I give credit to Lori for trying to match program cost with revenue through user fees. Those who benefit from something ought to pay for it. Especially when budgets are tight. The revenue raised from fees might just keep a core educational program funded rather than face elimination. Her position may not be popular, but it shows me she is a thinker and she is not afraid to question the status quo.

jqpublic:

You are discussing two totally different issues. I pointed out that the amount of money the board was asking us to pay in premiums was more than off set by a higher pay raise that will last until I die. However, the athletic fees do not go to athletics where the raise went to the teachers. If you wish to discuss this more please email me privately, it is NOT the topic of this thread and I refuse to debate it here.

Jim Reif: I find it interesting that you talk about the 32 million dollar slush fund? Especially when you preached to the JEA to pass a contract that would ultimately increase it by millions of dollars.

Coach Reif...may I be the first to shake your hand? Thank you for teaching those young men things they may not get in any other setting in their young life. I ran my tennis playing daughter around tonight after her meet discussing this fee issue and she knows of two girlfriends who don't qualify to play sports for free but wouldn't be able to afford to play if the fees would increase. And these sports get these girls out of their homes and into something productive. Although we need to give our children what they need at home, it is sometimes the teachers/coaches/instructors/administrators who actually reach out and make a difference. Thank you again Coach Reif and thank any other coach you see out there for me.

Well, I just got back from practice. I spent 3+ hours teaching my players leadership, determination, discipline, teamwork, pride, and the value of a good effort. We have not even played a game yet, and they have grow so much from boys to responsible men. They learn that when you do things properly good things happen, and bad decisions have negative consequences. All that without playing a game and without being in a class room.
--
To me that is what you get for the $50, plus the honor of being on the team and in the team picture. There is NO promise of playing time for the $50, playing time is earned.
--
As a 14 year vetran teacher, I can tell you without a doubt, I can teach things on the football field I can't ever get across in a classroom.
--
My question is this? Where does the $50 my kids pay now go? To the athletic fund, NO. It goes into the general fund, where it sits in the $32 MILLION slush fund. Tell me how a kid needs to come up with an extra $250 to go into the general fund that has $32 MILLION extra.
If the money went to athletics, I would listen to her points.
--
Also, the $50 is waivable, I've had the conversation with Mr. Phillips a few times, and there is always a solution. So, speaking only for Craig football, I know no kid has EVER been turned away for the $50 fee. I would bet my car that's the case at Parker too. 99% of the coaches I know would pay the $50 themselves to get a kid on the field.
--
Jim Reif
Craig Sophomore FB Coach

I seriously doubt anyone on the school board will vote along with Stottler. The fees are enormous. We'll see in tomorrow's Gazette what the rest of the board has to say about this.

Factor the cost of the sport's costs for equipment, coaches, busses, etc. subtracting
what is made on game attendance fees. Then charge the athletes accordingly.

“I’m not going to win this battle anyway,” Stottler said of sports fees, “but I certainly hope that together we can win the war over funding.

If you aren't going to win this battle anyway than why are you even proposing it. Sounds to me like you are just trying to get some non-sports enthusiast primed for the next election.
$300 to play a sport. Give me a break. Believe it or not, sports teach students alot more than how to kick or throw a ball.

Well said srjndb! There are so many behind the scenes fees and committments on the part of athletes families that most people don't realize. Gas, food, lodging, time, required fund raising and the dedication of the athletes themselves to attend EVERY practice (or risk losing their spot)and keep up their grades. Let's not forget that most of these kids also have excellent grades! IMO they should be rewarded not penalized.

Maybe they should look at it from our point of view. Not only do athletes(parents) have to pay for the fee, don't forget to add the price of shoes, gas for the hundreds of tourneys played out of town(and yes, this is a requirement for some teams- you miss a game, whether it be school or summer, you can lose your starting position), food & lodging while out of town, and just the gas if the parents want to watch their kid play a school league game when it's in Madison/beloit, etc. Maybe Lori should understand that it does take a lot of money to play sports for high schools already. And if I'm correct, I believe we had to raise money for new uniforms-Which we did not keep.

This is just not right. I have to agree with whybesad and ilovehockey. If a kid has to pay all this money to sit on the bench then what will that accomplish? Coaches need to put the best team on the field/court and aren't going to get pressure from angry parts who shell out hundreds of dollars and travel to see their son/daughter sit on the bench the whole season or play very little. And the WIAA is very strict on getting public funding which should be revised or just looked at. $300 is just going to be a mess your going to have the kids/families that can afford the sports going out for those and the less fortunate kids going out for the less expensive sports and killing the talent pool. Sure people can get the fee waived but, there aren't many teenagers that are going to want to be the ones who have to go to the athletic director asking to get the fee waived they would feel embarrassed and the self esteem would be hurt. Some kids would rather sit out the season than having to go ask for financial assistance to play a sport they love. Leave it at the $50 and be done with it.

Higher fees for some sports is unfair. It seems that the sports the district wants to charge more for also have equipment that has to be privided by the family in addition to what the schools provide (hockey/football in the hundreds of $$). Fees are charged for attendance to the games and concessions are sold as well so there is some $ being recovered. Most parents of these kids are not rich (contrary to popular belief)and charging them more may mean that a child that has played this sport their whole life is now not able to due to higher fees and multiple children in the district in sports. There are those that cannot get fees waived due to their income but don't make enough to pay the higher fees either. School sports build character, leadership, confidence, and decision making skills. All of these skills will be needed in life beyond high school and I would hope that taxpayers would consider sports as well as academics an investment in the future. Successful high school sports and academics are a community draw to new families and businesses too when making a decision to relocate.

Call it an activity fee, make it $50 and charge it to everyone who participates in non-academic activities - music, athletics. It all goes to the general fund any way.

The other thing that doesn't make sense, is there are individuals and organizations who would like to donate and help out with the costs, but the rules are so strict with the WIAA, it makes it nearly impossible. Maybe the schools should take it up with them so that they can get more private money.

This is a sad situation. Why and how has the cost of school sports programs escalated to this point? Is every city in the Big 8 Conference charging this amount of money per sport? In light of the poverty series noting that 46 percent of families headed by single women are living in poverty, how could those students afford to go out for sports? There would be too many participants to waive them all. This is insane. Is there information available regarding why it is costing so much to fund each sport? Are they buying new uniforms too often, too much ice time (is hockey even paid for by the schools?), golf course fees, etc.?

did you know cheer is also a sport and requires the $50 fee?????????

"Stottler said she would vote against an across-the-board fee hike, calling it unfair to students in low-cost sports" An athletic fee is an athletic fee, whether it be for a "high cost" sport or not. Calculate the cost of all sports in the district and then divide it based on how many athletic teams there are. I believe in Math class they call this an average.

To branch off of whybesad...I have no problem paying a small athletic fee. But I agree that once you do pay that athletic fee EQUAL (but won't happen) playing time for the athlete is the main priority. Now the family IS PAYING FOR INTRUCTION OF the sport along with useage of equipment. how are school athletics any different then YMCA,Youth football, baseball, etc?

In the youth programs throughout our community the coaches are NOT PAID, in the schools, the coaches receive a small stipend for their service.

As a parent of high school athletes I think were really already fund these athletes enough.

The $50.00 a sport is completely reasonable If I'm a parent and I have to pay $300.00 for my child to be on a athletic team. What if that child pays the $300.00 to play and never plays? Then what? You are going to have very, very upset parents. You have to figure that the parents/athletes have to buy some of their own equipment such as shoes,pads etc. It's just going to keep going up and up and the community is going to have very talented athletes being unable to compete in high school sports. I'm sure when she was in school they didn't charge any participation fees. They opened the door with charging the $50 now they think they can get more outta the athletes.

ilovehockey, "ktaustin, so you didn't have sports when you were in school?" For the record, I did wrestling briefly and played a couple years in the marching band (which did football games) at Craig.

If there is such a huge crowd at games (which I don't deny), then they can start charging those huge crowds to pay for the sports programs. If the sport can't support itself with charging viewer and player admission fees, then in all fairness it should be cut from the program. I don't argue that we should try to offer some activities for our kids (whether it actually helps to keep them off the "street" I question), but do we need to offer $1000 per student activities? What's wrong with backyard sports or going to the park or YMCA for some games?

An article on the importance of sports in schools...

http://www.lisadunningmft.com/high_schoo...

ktaustin wrote: "Sports are fun, but the purpose of public schools is supposed to be an academic education, and that's what our taxes should be going toward. I guess I'm in the minority in feeling this way."

KT, you are NOT the only one that feels that way. Why should tax payers have to pay for ANY portion of sports. Sports are called extra-curricular activites specifically because they are outside the purpose of the educational system. Kids wishing to participate had better get busy with fundraising events and parents should get used to "pay to play".

Without knowing all the numbers that go into the cost to run a sport for a season, it is hard to make an informed decision on this matter anyways.

I can see why Golf would be one sport that has a high cost to revenue ratio since the price for one person to golf 18 holes is high all by itself. It isn't like the schools have their own private golf courses to practice and play on, so they have to go somewhere. I don't know how they handle the greens fees for golf though. You would think that the school board could get the courses to lower their fees, or donate time for them, after all couldn't it be a tax write-off for the courses anyways?

I guess I just don't see what makes some of these other sports cost so much more than others to operate for a season.

ktaustin, so you didn't have sports when you were in school? Sports is not only for the athletes, it is supposed by a community activity. Have you been to a football/basketball/hockey game, it is a huge crowd that isn't just the players and their families.

And when these parents can't afford for their kids to play and they are hanging out in large groups because they don't have anything to do, are you going to complain about all the kids doing nothing about hanging around?

I see the value of the athletic programs, but some sports are obviously more expensive than others, and those costs should be borne in part by the athletes. Common sense.

cojguy-What does showchoir have to do with it? It is not funded by the school. I'm not sure what board member is involved, but what would be the difference if they were?

Sports are fun, but the purpose of public schools is supposed to be an academic education, and that's what our taxes should be going toward. I guess I'm in the minority in feeling this way.

As for the woman making the proposal not having kids in sports, I suppose that's a valid point but it shouldn't invalidate her vote. By that logic, only pregnant women could vote on abortion, only soldiers currently serving in the military could vote on the war in Iraq, etc. For that matter, parents with kids in sports wouldn't be able to vote either because they would have a vested interest in keeping the fees down.

HeatherH...sure, that may be what I mean. Although Football generates income. And I don't personally feel
that my child 'just plays tennis'. I think it's GREAT that she plays Tennis. I would feel great if she played paper football if it was a team sport through school. And I'd pay the athletic fee. This just creates a stigma that it's "just tennis" or "just football". But find a fair and reasonable way to divide of up the fees. So by that token shouldn't Tennis pay more since it draws no revenue yet football does? But it requires less equipment...so how do we determine it? I am not saying that I am feeling attacked here or taking it personally, but that this is going to start a unneeded controversy on which sports are more important. I am sure I won't be the only one who views it this way at some point. I am all for an increase if one is needed. I'll even pay for my 8th Grader to play soccer, because I know it costs money for the district. But let's think reasonably. And great, the lower income families will still be able to have the fees waived. But won't this possibly raise the number of individuals taking the district up on this option? I know at least a half a dozen families who qualify for free/reduced lunch and would qualify for this but they feel it's their responsibilty to pay for their children and leave the rest of the funds for those who "desperately" need it. Will they gain in the long run? Will they lose players? These are just questions and thoughts I feel they should consider this evening.

Looks like only children of upper income families will get to participate in sports. How will the average kids feel when it is so unafordable? Poor.

I find it interesting that the a board member who’s children are involved in show choir and other activities but not sports would make such a proposal. I would think that abstaining from voting on the subject would be appropriate – the ethics of making such a proposal are at best highly questionable.

This seems to be a very emotional topic, one that is bound to cause friction in the schools. Maresyann, I think you're looking at it the wrong way. You say that your daughter "just plays tennis", yet football has the same lower fee, so do they "just play football"?

The sports that carry a higher fee are the sports with higher fees associated with them. Common sense would dictate that more would be charged for these sports where the district has to pay more.

Ok, the comment about sports that create revenue will pay less makes no sense to me. My daughter plays Tennis. We pay the $50 but the sport itself generates no income for the schools. Under this plan, we will still pay $50. My daughter was also offered a uniform one size too small. No other sizes are available for her. I would LOVE to pay more so each athlete gets a suitable uniform. But to charge a different amount for each sport draws a wider line between the "popularity and importance" of each sport as seen by both the school students and the administration. And with this plan, it makes it apparent that this particular sport falls into "all other High School Sports". At this point, I feel that my daughter "just plays tennis" and isn't as important as Football/Basketball/Hockey. Sure, they don't bring in money, but I feel that the overall outlook of the sports should be the same. So if you are going to increase the fee, raise them all to $75 or so. Don't create another hurdle for kids and families. My daughter is also selling raffle tickets for both Craig/Parker sports. 4000 of these tickets are available for $20 a piece and each sport gets money back based on how many tix they sell. Hmmm, 24 tennis girls versus how many football players? I sell them, and try to sell a lot, because I feel it's important. Mostly to offset the cost for the district. But the success of this fundraising effort might be less if parents already feel they put out enough money. And I provide the tennis racket, and the shoes. Not as costly as golf clubs I guess,or football pads, but if you raise fees, start supplying more equipment. It costs a great deal to have a good replacement racket on hand as well as getting them restrung.

This will keep students out of sports more and more out on the street...drinking, drugs,...etc....mabye a few new street gangs might come of it. Im getting sick of the same old red and blue colors. Maybe a new gang can take on some different colors?

Stottler seems to make the assumption that school athletics only benefit those playing the sport. Another way to look at the costs is that the student-athletes provide a service to school in the form of entertainment and school pride. Homecoming week, basketball games, state tournament trips, are a part of the high school experience provided by the student-athlete.

I believe that the Parker Girls Basketball fundraises for their out of state tournaments. There should be no difference by school what you pay.

sorry should be tournaments not tournements. My fingers kind of got away from me on that one.

Just a guess as to why Parker Girls Basketball costs more than Craigs: Maybe the tournements that they attend are more expensive. Doesn't Parkers Girls Basketball attend a tournement in California or Florida or something. I don't know if Craig does that for sure. Maybe I am completely wrong though too.

I totally understand the fee perspective and a fifty-dollar fee per sport is reasonable. That being said three hundred dollars is an awful lot of money for one sport to charge. I think those sports are going to see a large decline in competitors joining their teams. Which in turn is going to end up getting those sports cut out completely because they won't be able to justify having an entire team for five people.

Maybe the sports that don't generate as much revenue need to do additional fundraising or something to help off set the costs. I know fund raising is a fine line, if you do too much of it, people stop giving completely.

I don't get why Parker Girls Basketball costs more than Craig Girls Basketball. Can anyone help me out here?

Sorry, but it should not matter what sport you are in or which school you attend. There should be a fee that is across the board for ALL sports. This plan is like saying that the parking fee for an expensive car should be more simply because it costs more.