This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Sports

Superintendent Discusses Athletics Funding, 'Pay-to-Play' at Boosters Meeting

Parents question how the district will be able to afford its athletic programs in the future.

School District of the Chathams Superintendent Jim O'Neill clarified the effects of the upcoming school budget on Chatham High School's athletic programs and answered questions about them at a meeting for the Chatham High School Athletic Boosters at the high school Tuesday night. 

The budget crisis has happened to coincide with an increase in class sizes and subsequent athletic participation at Chatham High School, creating a delicate situation for the school district, which is trying to accommodate all those students without cutting from the programs. 

O'Neill reassured the audience of parents—some of whom were attending a booster meeting for the first time just to hear O'Neill—that the school budget, as it stands, would not be cutting from any athletic programs nor cutting any athletic teams from the 2010-2011 school year. It would also not cut any coaches or games.

Find out what's happening in Chathamwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

"The budget as it exists now includes everything we already do. It doesn't reduce coaches or competition," O'Neill said. 

The only "constraints," he said, might come from transportation because of the increasing number of students participating in the athletic programs. 

Find out what's happening in Chathamwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

O'Neill also addressed the "pay-to-play" fee the budget would institute. Students would be required to pay a one time fee of $150 to participate in athletic programs. That fee also covers participation in other activities, such as music or drama programs. 

"[The fee] covers everything a child does all year, including athletics, music, academic teams," O'Neill said.  

After reviewing pay to play fees in "dozens of other districts," the Board of Education decided that an annual, one-time fee to participate in school activities would be a better alternative than cutting from the programs. O'Neill estimated that the participation fee will bring in about $130,000 for the district. 

O'Neill expects that some families will not be able to pay the fee and said that information would remain confidential.  

He also said that if funds appeared from elsewhere, the pay-to-play program could be dismantled.

"I'm not sure we're there yet," he added.  

The influx of students participating in athletics had some parents concerned about the number of coaches for certain teams. O'Neill was unsure that the district could afford to hire new coaches. 

"It would be hard for us to add many positions. We would have to have savings elsewhere," he said. 

As for requesting new teams for the 2010-2011 school year, O'Neill doubted that the school district could take on that burden. 

"In all honesty, I don't think the district is in any position to take on any new teams because of the economic downturn and the significant reduction of state aid," he said. "It's doubtful we would be able to add to our athletic endeavors." 

He added, however, that if parents were "willing to underwrite" the cost of new athletic programs, the school district would be supportive. 

When asked about advertising on the fields or endorsement deals to raise revenue, O'Neill said that boards in the past have been "strongly opposed to that," but that he didn't have any sense how the current board feels. 

"Some farsighted people believe that secondary schools need to engage alumni like colleges do to help fund things that otherwise would not be funded," he said. 

After addressing the budget's impact on athletics generally, O'Neill answered questions regarding the fields—"It's not a matter of not wanting to work on athletic fields; it's a matter of having too much rain"—and uniforms.

"The district is committed as much as possible to buying uniforms," he said. "To my knowledge, families are not asked to purchase uniforms." 

O'Neill said afterwards that the board's goal in creating the budget was to preserve the athletic, theater and music programs as much as possible. 

"We reduced the amount we spent on capital projects. [We did] whatever we could that didn't adversely impact the program or staff," he said. 

He admitted that for the athletic programs, the constraints are that sports teams can only carry a certain number of students. 

"There are built in constraints, but if we find funds for additional sports, they would fill up because the kids love to compete,"  he said.

Overall, O'Neill's projection was that the athletic program was safe, for now, and that Chatham had fared much better than other districts. 

"We're the only district that hasn't cut one team," he said. "We're demonstrating the fact that we believe interscholastic sports are important." 

Some parents, though, weren't convinced that the high school could maintain its athletic program in the future. 

Lyn Godziela has one freshman at Chatham High School and one first grader.  

"I felt concerned because the decrease in the school budget is pretty drastic," she said. "It looks like we for the most part [will] maintain status quo, but I'm very worried about future years because the incoming classes are getting larger. The superintendent said that most students are in multiple activities. I'm not sure that that will be sustainable in future years."

It's unclear yet whether the athletic program at Chatham High School has dodged a bullet. O'Neill seemed, at least on the surface, cautiously optimistic about the athletic program's future. As for Godziela? 

"I only see this getting worse," she said. 

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?