Surlethe wrote:SancheztheWhaler wrote:You might want to prove that the money spent on sports teams isn't beneficial.
As I said on the previous page, the burden of proof is on
you to demonstrate a program which is hardly related to education ought to be school-sponsored. You also need to demonstrate the benefits outweigh the opportunity cost.
Since sports are already in schools, I don't see that I really need to justify why they should remain. They're desirable (most students and parents want them), they're fun, they do teach some skills, and contrary to what some people believe, they don't remove vast amounts of much needed funding from school budgets (as has already been evidenced by theski).
Since we're discussing burden of proof, maybe we should talk about what exactly we're all trying to prove. It seems to me that the standard has already been set by most communities - if the parents, students, and community want sports in school (for whatever reason) then they're provided; simple supply and demand. Many schools (my high school, for example) don't have all sports. We didn't have wrestling, men's volleyball, or gymnastics - other schools around here did. We had a chess club, but no debate team. Other schools had both, others had neither.
I don't believe there's another standard that needs to be met when discussing school sponsored sports - this whole argument about cost-benefit analysis is a tangent and a waste of time.