Ann Arbor student-athletes may pay to play to cover budget shortfall
The price to play high school sports in Ann Arbor may rise for participants.
Under a proposal unveiled by administrators at a budget meeting Thursday night, the Ann Arbor school district may enact a pay-to-play system, requiring student-athletes to help fund the sports they participate in.
The plan, which would help eliminate a $20 million shortfall, calls for high school athletes to pay $150 per year while middle school athletes would be required to pay $50. If passed by the district's school board, the fees would begin for the 2010-11 school year.
A pay-to-play system - along with cuts in weekend transportation to games within Washtenaw County along with the consolidation of some sports programs - would trim $500,000 from the district's $3.6 million athletic budget.
Of the overall budget, $3.2 million comes from subsidies from the district's general fund.
Ann Arbor student-athletes already pay money to their respective team's booster clubs. Those funds are handled by parent-run booster organizations rather than the district.
But if local student-athletes are asked to pay another $150 in order to take part in high school athletics, coaches such as Maureen Isaac - who oversees Skyline High School's swimming program - fear additional costs will lead to a drop in participation.
"The team fee is tough enough (to come up with) already without asking them to pay (a pay-to-play fee)," Isaac said Thursday night. "If we're already asking them to pay $120 (for sports) and then we're going to ask them for another $150, I think that's going to preclude some of them from playing."
At Skyline, each of Isaac's 35 swimmers pays $120 to participate - a fee that covers their swimsuit, swim caps and other needs. Student-athletes also sold pizza coupons. While some students' parents chose to participate in the fundraiser, others covered the amount with a personal check.
Now, if the pay-to-play proposal goes into effect, parents may kick in more in order for their student-athletes to participate. Many parents may not have a problem with that, according to Pioneer athletic director Lorin Cartwright, who oversees a department at a school where 65 percent of the student population plays sports.
Especially if the alternative is eliminating high school sports.
"Parents want to support their kids, and if the opportunity was there to pay a little bit and have their kid play or not have the opportunity to play and nothing for their kid to do, I think they would want to do that," Cartwright said in a meeting with AnnArbor.com last month.
Pioneer basketball coach Rex Stanczak believes pay to play could have adverse effects. This year, Pioneer basketball players paid $150 in team fees - a drop of $25 from last year's figure adjusted to the tough economy.
But if the alternative to pay to play is cutting some of the 30 sports schools such as Pioneer and Huron offer students, Stanczak believes the district has to look into different ways of saving money.
"It's a really tough situation we're in," Stanczak said Thursday night. "It's just really tough."
Huron athletic director Dottie Davis sees another potential issue. For some parents, paying to participate means an assurance of playing time.
"The biggest complaint I get as an athletic director is about playing time," Davis said Thursday night. "We're going to have to be clear that paying does not mean playing time."
In small-group settings at Thursday's meeting, some parents had concerns over the equity with the $150 flat fee. Complaints came not with the fee but with the fact that some athletes may play multiple sports without having to pay more money than those that participate in more than one sport.
Davis said she generally was encouraged by parents' attitudes concerning the possible shift to pay to play. Huron boys basketball coach Waleed Samaha can understand why.
Samaha's boys basketball players don't pay a fee to participate, but are asked to help with fundraising. Samaha's team raised $12,000 to cover its costs this season, which include equipment, uniforms and travel costs.
"I think given the economic conditions we're in, I think people understand (a pay-to-play concept)," Samaha said Thursday. "You don't want to have to look at cutting athletics (all together), because it's an extension of the school day and because of the lessons kids learn from playing sports.
"Athletics are such a meaningful part of the overall high school experience, and so I don't think asking people to pay for that isn't out of the realm of expectation."
More coverage: • Ann Arbor superintendent outlines draft plan that cuts 34 teachers, institutes pay-to-play sports • Ann Arbor budget plans contain potentially controversial moves • Background on the district's budget.
AnnArbor.com education reporter David Jesse contributed to this report. Jeff Arnold covers sports for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at jeffarnold@annarbor.com or 734-623-2554. Follow him on Twitter @jeffreyparnold.
Comments
Jim Mulchay
Sat, Jan 9, 2010 : 1:16 p.m.
My understanding is - Insurance fees - at this time - the ONLY athletic fee the Ann Arbor Public Schools collect from athletes is a $30 insurance fee. This is only charged once per school year per student and is waived in cases based on financial need, similar to lunches. All the other sport fees (in the AAPS) are (I believe) wholly administered by the athletic booster clubs - not the AAPS. So a 3 sport athlete might pay $30 to the AAPS when they register for their fall sport and possibly a fee to the fall team; then possibly a fee to the winter team; and possibly a fee to the spring team; So total out-of-pocket cost is currently $30 + whatever the team fees may be (not all teams have fees) plus whatever equipment the athlete is expected to provide for themselves.
DonBee
Sat, Jan 9, 2010 : 11:53 a.m.
I note that the budget only shows insurances fees right now. If there are more than 3000 students paying a $120 fee today to play sports, then I am guess that is the insurance fee that the school has to turn around and pay to the insurance company. Even when I played sports almost 40 years ago, we had to pay the insurance fee to play as well as for our mouth guards. Nothing has changed on that score. As to $150 per student for pay to play, that does not come close to covering the $3 million dollar gap. It would have to be $1000 for 3000 students to cover the gap. I wonder if we can reduce the salary portion by using volunteer coaches more and more student teachers (doesn't the UofM have a coaching program for athletes, couldn't they fill in a lot of coaching roles for very little money?). The other rock out in the field is that AAPS has never discussed how much money the booster clubs raise. I know that David Jesse is chasing the number, but the last number I heard for Huron (where one of mine is a student) is $2 million a year. If that number is correct and Pioneer raises a similar amount and Skyline half of that (since it is 1/2 full). Then the school district has another $5 million that it spends on sports that is not in the budget - meaning that total sports budget is around $8 million. If this is true, then we are spending on average about $2500 per student that plays sports. Now a lot of this is private money, but it is a lot of money. I have to wonder if in the athletic budget, the cost to mow the grass, paint the bleachers, and the other general athletic maintenance is covered, or if that is in the school budget or if that is in the booster budget. The first thing I would do to cut the cost of athletics is to drop 2 of the 3 athletic director positions (at $100,000+ salary each) and do what Plymouth-Canton does and have 1 to cover all three of their high schools. The second thing I would do is work out a deal with the UofM for coaching staff using graduate students in the coaching program on a student teacher basis. I might keep a head coach or a supervising teacher to make sure that school guidelines are followed. I bet we could cut salaries by another $500,000 to $750,000 and since most of the coaches are full time teachers, that would mean they have more time to spend on teaching in the classroom. Good for all, all around. The third thing I would do is to tell the booster clubs that the school subsidy is going to be cut by $1 million in 2010 and they need to fill in the gap. With the cut in Athletic directors - it would mean that they would only probably have to raise and additional $700,000 - since the cost of a $100,000 position is more like $150,000 with benefits. It might mean no extra money if the UofM can be helpful. Please if anyone has better ideas or number, please post them here.
TXteacher
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 10:29 p.m.
You will eventually be "paying to play" for art, music, band, as well as athletics. Maybe just start "paying to go to school" tuition? Then taxpayers won't have to pay a D%mn thing!
bruno_uno
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 8:30 p.m.
it seems pay to play is another word for double dipping the taxpayers
Andrew Thomas
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 7:40 p.m.
Under the District's proposal, the participation fee would be waived for students who qualify for the free/reduced lunch program (this was not mentioned in the article). So there would be no need for the Boosters to pick up the District's fee for low-income student athletes. There may be a few students whose families are just above the cut-off for the reduced lunch program, these could probably be handled on a case-by-case basis with scholarships from the Boosters, PTSO, etc.
Ralph
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 5:32 p.m.
Total pay to play is a good idea. Perhaps a local business man could pick up the tab or how about the U of M Athletic Dept. They have plenty of cash.
TF
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 3:09 p.m.
I agree with SalineMom on the "Pay to Participate" concept. This will cut marginally-skilled players from teams because who is going to want to pay $150 for their kid to ride the pine?
johnnya2
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 2:48 p.m.
Actually proves why single payer health care could probably end most school districts financial troubles almost immediately. If the state of Michigan wants to really make the most business friendly environment in the country, they would immediately offer universal single payer health benefits for every company that employs people in the state. They could also offer free post high school education for every citizen. How many people would immediately want to have their business in Michigan, bring people who value education to the state and at the same time bring higher standard of living to all.
Susie Q
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 12:14 p.m.
FYI I understand that employees in all walks of life are enduring pay cuts and health insurance rollbacks. The teachers of Washtenaw County school districts are not exceptions to this. In my school district there is a choice of health insurance for the teaching staff. A teacher could choose a relatively less expensive HMO product and pay a small amount out of pocket toward the premium or they could choose a more comprehensive and expensive product. Last year I chose a PPO from MESSA, which cost me approximately $3500 that I had to pay toward the premium, in addition to co-pays and deductibles. This year the co-pays on prescriptions tripled. This was done because this change could save the district approximately 1 million dollars. The teachers on the HMO plans have seen their prescription costs skyrocket. Some folks are paying $60 for a one month prescription. I am not complaining, I am indeed grateful to have a job with benefits. But, the posters who suggest that teachers and school employees have not sacrificed or seen their standard of living be compromised are either misinformed or unrealistic. I suspect that school employees (admin, teachers, bus drivers, etc) will continue to see their pay and benefits take a hit. I also suspect that most will agree to do so because they are dedicated to the schools and their students and understand the very precarious state of school finance.
aaconcerned
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 12:13 p.m.
Starrfield: I don't feel that teachers should take a paycut at all. The health benefits need to be adjusted but I'd like to see more cuts at the top and certainly at least a discussion of merging Stone, Clemente and a few of the really small elementary schools. I still don't understand the district lines and how Clague is now split in half but I'll save that for another day. sweet-life- From what I have seen the AD's have made cuts to sports that were on the smaller side by cutting assitants, officials, awards, etc. Dexter has a pretty good pay-to-participate program that cost $100 per sport or $300 family cap per year which is nice for the families that have siblings in multiple sports. Sports with higher overhead; ice hockey, skating, already have very high team fees due to the cost of ice time. I too would like to see a breakdown of funding and cost per sport but I think we would be surprised in just how little some of the teams cost. Transportation is a large part of the budget. I can only speak from personal experience on the Huron side but I think they do a fantastic job of managing the Athletic budget and running a lean program.
sweet_life
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 11:58 a.m.
I have no problem with pay-to-participate for sports or other extracurriculars as a way to reduce District spending on these programs as long as some scholarship money is available for kids who can't afford the fee. I think it makes more sense to assess the fee per sport rather than per year (for example, $50 per sport rather than $150 per year). I also think that the District should consider adjusting its funding for sports to more properly reflect the number of students participating. There are currently very large inequities in the funding of sports with some getting much higher funding per student than others. Some sports do have higher costs that others, but I would shift more of those costs to fundraising efforts.
Lisa Starrfield
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 11:45 a.m.
aaconcerned, We will be back at the negotiating table this summer. But there are people advocating that teachers take as much as a 16% pay cut to pay for this shortfall... a shortfall not of our making. Keep in mind that our health care costs have gone up, again and again and again. They went up again this year... mid-year.
aaconcerned
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 11:16 a.m.
Starrfield: You have no idea how much money I contribute to the Athletic Program and will continue to do so regardless of pay-to-participate. Athletes parents are already financially contributing by paying large team fees and many of them end up meeting fundraising quotas by having to buy cookie dough, raffle tickets, etc, themselves. Are you aware of the number of coaches that personally contribute (financially) to their own programs so that many kids can participate that otherwise cannot do so? I know I shelled out $300 out of my pocket this year to sponsor 2 athletes that couldn't participate due to financial difficulties on the home front. We are all making sacrifices here. Do I think it's time that employees pay more for benefits in order to preserve the entire educational platform in Ann Arbor (academics, music, art, alternative programs, athletics, etc.) YES. I'm not advocating that employees should take a 25% paycut, I'm simply saying its time to open up the bargaining agreement on healthcare like every other industry has done this year. Would you rather pay a $20 co-pay, or jobs for you and your colleagues? Everyone is taking cuts and hurting. We all have to do our part. Athletics is a start but its a drop in the bucket considering the 20m deficit. UM employees took a HUGE hit this year with rising health care cost. They werent fortunate to have a Union backing them so had no choice in the matter. And if you ask many of them theyll tell you theyre just happy to have a job right now.
Lisa Starrfield
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 10:50 a.m.
Aaconcerned, How many students don't get to play because they sit on the bench or aren't chosen for the team? If the kids who don't want to pay to play for Huron or Pioneer or Skyline choose to go to travel teams, so be it. I'm sure there will be kids who are happy to take their spots. But once again, I'm absolutely bemused by this unwillingness to pay a few hundred dollars for your own child's activities while expecting that my colleagues and I take thousands of dollars in cuts in compensation.
aaconcerned
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 9:28 a.m.
According to the User Friendly Budget sheet the sample Athletic budget is as follows: Admissions: 285,000 Insurance Fees: 66,500 Subsidy from Gen Fund: 3,262,308 Sub-total receipts: 3,613,808 Salaries/Benefits: 2,642,889 Non-salary items: 988,919 In 2008/2009 a total of 3618 students participated in high school athletics. Given the $150 pay-to-participate scenario that generates $542,700. Where is the rest going to come from? Also, given the current economic conditions just how much support can the Boosters provide for kids that cannot afford to pay-to-participate? What about the issue of parents just putting their kids in club teams or AAU as a "more bang for your buck" type scenario. Sure kids love to play athletics for school but if your parents have to pay for it many of them will opt for club teams since the parents themselves have more of a say in how the team operates, etc. I would hate to see a huge decline in the high school athletic program due to that scenario. Yes it's time for parents and athletes to foot more of the bill but lets remember many of them already are paying team dues/fees because of the already shrinking budget to each team. And most of the teams do fundraise but you can only sell so much cookie dough when all the other school activities are doing the same... My point is athletics isn't the elephant in the room here - it's just a teeny drop in the bucket given that district salaries and benefits are approx 89% of the total budget. I believe salaries are in line and teachers are being compensated as they very well should be, however benefits are a huge problem nationwide and everyone is having to pay more premiums and co-pays. Also, it's time the district consolidates and closes up some buildings that aren't being fully utilized.
Jeff Arnold
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 8:14 a.m.
Jim - you are right. All of the district's booster clubs offer scholarships for students who currently can't pay team fees. They may be asked to do more when it comes to fund-raising, but athletes who can't afford to pay are in no way told they can't play. I will check into the multiple student issue for an upcoming series we have on athletics as it fits into school spending.
AAJoker
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 8:13 a.m.
Pay to play is a great idea! (though certainly not a break through) The fee should be per sport, and based on the actually cost for the team (though I wonder how to handle facilities costs as some fields are dedicated while some resources exist due to PE).
Jim Mulchay
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 7:47 a.m.
(1) If the budget for scholastic sports is currently 3.6 million and 3.2 million is provided from the district where does the other.4 million come from? It seems that if most (all?) teams either have their own fund-raising or "team fees" already that the actual cost of athletics must be significantly greater than the $3.6 million the district accounts for - is this "total" number available? (2) I would expect that - like other districts with pay to play - there will be some modification for students who are unable to pay. (3) It might be too early in the discussion, but some districts cap the maximum an individual family must pay (when there are numerous athletes in the family).
SalineMom
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 7:40 a.m.
be careful about calling it "pay to PLAY". this implies if you pay money your student athlete WILL play. It is "pay to PARTICIPATE".
racerx
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 5:04 a.m.
@EG- playing sports and PE classes are totally different. The proposed amounts aren't so bad. Personally that's two weeks of Starbucks for my middle schooler!