web1_Wilkes-Barre-City-Police.jpg

Police searching for teenage boy reported missing on Sunday

NWS.png

Sunshine, chance of rain predicted in the Wyoming Valley this week

<p>Would it be a good idea to &#8230;</p><p>&#8230; take a hard look at the possibility of introducing &#8220;pay to play&#8221; for sports and extracurricular activities in area school districts?</p><p>Before you start writing the angry letters, an explanation.</p><p>The notion is not that cash-strapped districts immediately should start charging students to play football or field hockey. Rather it&#8217;s a question of preempting that scenario, or at least softening the blow if things get that bad, by starting the conversation now.</p><p>Consider this latest school budget cycle. The money crunch experienced by all districts was laid bare in Luzerne County&#8217;s two largest: Hazleton Area, which plans to go to four-day weeks for three winter months, and Wilkes-Barre Area, where programs such as industrial arts were suspended.</p><p>The message recurs in other school districts&#8217; meeting agendas and budgets: Money is tight, and no one expects major relief anytime soon.</p><p>The pay-to-play concept is nothing new, especially when you look beyond major sports. This spring, backers of the Meyers High School chess club, which won the state championship pretty much on its own dime, then asked the Wilkes-Barre Area board to chip in for nationals only if fundraising fell short.</p><p>Similarly, the board&#8217;s 2012 approval of a lacrosse team mandated there be no cost to the district, and organizers started by charging $50 a player, hoping that fundraising would offset the student-owed fees.</p><p>A 2013 report by the Pennsylvania School Boards Association said that, in 2010, only 13 percent of athletic directors statewide reported that their districts charged for athletic participation, ranging from $5 to $50 per student per activity. By 2013, however, 38 percent of districts charged. And fees went as high as $200 per student per sport.</p><p>Education Week&#8217;s online archive is peppered with articles as far back as 1988 touching on pay-to-play incidents, including Oregon parents banding together to pay for a bus to sports events.</p><p>Anecdotal evidence shows what you&#8217;d expect: As far back as 1988, Michigan&#8217;s Lapeer High School bumped a participation fee from $85 a sport to $275, and participation plunged from 641 students to 427. Some parents got upset when they did pay and their child sat on the bench.</p><p>Meanwhile, taxpayers with no children or children who don&#8217;t participate in a lot of activities generally approve of pay to play because, well, why should they pay for everybody else?</p><p>Solutions? At the very least, area school districts could consider voter referendums to gauge the public&#8217;s attitude regarding higher taxes for extracurricular activities versus user fees or program elimination. Charitable foundations can expand their missions to support extracurriculars. Districts can devise partnerships with businesses and corporations to offset costs, possibly in exchange for some advertising rights.</p><p>Is it time to give the funding of school activities close scrutiny? Give us your feedback by sending a letter to the editor or posting comments to this editorial at timesleader.com.</p><style>
.neFileBlock {
	margin-bottom: 20px;
}
.neFileBlock p {
	margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.neFileBlock .neFile {
	border-bottom: 1px dotted #aaa;
	padding-bottom: 5px;
	padding-top: 10px;
}
.neFileBlock .neCaption {
	font-size: 85%;
}
</style>
<div class='neFileBlock'>
<div class="neFile"><img class="neImage" src="https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/web1_softball-1411652_1280.jpg">
<div class="neCaption"></div></div><div class="metaInfo"><photo0>https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/web1_softball-1411652_1280.jpg</photo0><caption0></caption0><photoCredit0></photoCredit0></div></div>

Our Opinion: ‘Pay to play’ appears on its way to area school sports programs