EGUSD may cut sports from budget

cdt3 · Post #1 » by **cdt3** » Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:24 am

I really don't know why I haven't seen this story in the Bee, but the Elk Grove School District may cut all sports. Wow.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34008781/ns ... amento_ca/

UKF · Post #2 » by **UKF** » Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:55 am

That was suppose to happen for my old high school this year but luckily it didn't. I played football and baseball for that high school. Luckily the community got together and was able to afford to keep sports in the schools.

cdt3 · Post #3 » by **cdt3** » Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:53 pm

I hope they can find a way to keep them. It its very important in keeping kids out of trouble. With an economy as bad as we have it will be hard enough to keep kids straight.

Makes me really doubt that any new plans for an arena will be started anytime.

Post #4 » by **ICMTM** » Wed Nov 18, 2009 3:05 pm

What will happen is the kids will just play the sport they are already playing with a differnt organization. The only sport that will be severely impacted will be football, and the people who are impacted are those who can't afford to sign their kids up for sports.

Even still are the days of free HS sports over?

Post #5 » by **ICMTM** » Wed Nov 18, 2009 3:37 pm

Just to clarify I have two kids in high school. One is a gymnast (which isn't a high school sport anyway) and the other is a cheerleader. We pay a grip for both!

My younger kids play softball, soccer, and baseball. They are already in organizations that are the biggest and best for their respective sports. All these organizations don't have numbers for high school kids because high school sports takes precidence. Sports won't go away for most kids.

Post #6 » by **pillwenney** » Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:49 pm

I think the concern is that it may go away for the kids that need it most. I'm certainly no expert, but I would think that poorer kids in the inner cities are the ones that need something like sports as much as anyone to keep them out of trouble. And of course, they are the ones that can least afford to really pay for it.

deNIEd · Post #7 » by **deNIEd** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:11 am

It sucks, but where else would you cut the money from

Post #8 » by **ICMTM** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:13 am

mitchweber wrote:I think the concern is that it may go away for the kids that need it most. I'm certainly no expert, but I would think that poorer kids in the inner cities are the ones that need something like sports as much as anyone to keep them out of trouble. And of course, they are the ones that can least afford to really pay for it.

We're talking Elk Grove here (see Elk Grove Unified School District). That's as far away from the "inner city" in this town as you can get to the South. Whoops...there's Galt.

IIRC I think EGUSD charged kids to play sports when I was in High School like $400 a year to play sports? Someone correct me if I'm wrong?

Smills91 · Post #9 » by **Smills91** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:19 am

mitchweber wrote:I think the concern is that it may go away for the kids that need it most. I'm certainly no expert, but I would think that poorer kids in the inner cities are the ones that need something like sports as much as anyone to keep them out of trouble. And of course, they are the ones that can least afford to really pay for it.

I don't buy that argument, cuz there'll be athletic type 'scholarships' for these kids. Also, privatizing this will streamline costs, cuz those RUNNING the sports(they won't disappear) will want the max. # of kids playing(maximum profits) and to do that, it'll make the COSTS cheaper.

There's an economic principle here. NO FREE LUNCHES. Even though you're not paying for sports directly, the COSTS of sports PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT, is STILL being paid BY you and others taxes at a much higher cost than what a privately financed sporting league will do.