I’m working on an article about a fabulous new program that’s happening at Aptos High. Those of you in the PVUSD district might remember vaguely, years ago when money seemed to flow rather than get spit out in spurts of IOUs, that we voted for a bond measure that upgraded the facilities at Aptos High. They are now reaping the benefits: a state-of-the-art facility serving as a home to the performing arts and indoor sports such as wrestling.
The years when we actually sent money to schools are fading from our memories, though, with today’s situation: PVUSD, now that Aptos High has their beautiful new facility, has cut funding for athletics 100%. How can they do that? you might ask. What is high school without athletics? Well, apparently the bright minds behind this decision think that it’s OK to ask the parents who can afford it to pay, and to tell the parents who can’t that they’ll be taken care of.
There are lots of problems with this approach, the most fundamental being the definition of public education. If we are to have public education in this country, it must be free and available to all. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, we can’t have a democracy if our people aren’t educated. And every single study and observation since the founding of this country makes it clear that every dollar invested in public education saves us many dollars: educated people are less likely to be unemployed, less likely to be in prison, less likely to be unhealthy, and on and on. If it were possible to add up all the dollars we save by educating our population, perhaps decisions like cutting education wouldn’t be so easy to pass off.
But OK, what about those who say that education is about the three R’s, and everything else should be optional? What the heck does wrestling have to do with getting a good education? According to Aptos High’s wrestling coach, Reggie Roberts, it has everything to do with it for some at-risk kids. During the school day, he’s a teacher for kids in special ed who are having a very hard time getting through school. After school, he becomes the guy that some of them come to for life lessons that end up helping them with school. “Non-core curriculum” is what keeps lots of kids coming to school at all.
The third defense of making kids pay to play is that the wealthier families can make up the money that the poorer families can’t pay. But this goes against what public education is about: letting all families participate on equal ground. I was talking to a friend whose husband is from a low-income Mexican-American family, and she expressed surprise that they didn’t realize that families like his would never admit that they needed to take charity from other families. Even though the payment is called a “donation,” they know charity when they see it. Their son, had pay-to-play been the rule when he was at school, would have been out on the street learning lessons from other kids rather than at sports practice learning self-discipline, respect, and all those other life lessons that kids learn in athletics.
The state budget being hammered out as I write is probably going to exacerbate these problems. The state is poised to grab money from schools and counties — the very public institutions that can least afford to let it go. This situation is just plain crazy, and needs to be fixed. But not by taking everything from the public schools that makes them worth going to. With NCLB and the high school exit exam, we’ve got to give kids something to look forward to at school!
