ShareThisTimes are tough? Take something away from our kids.
After all, this is the great state of Florida, right? This is the state that ranks second-to-last -- 50th on a list of 51, including the District of Columbia -- in per-pupil spending on public education compared to its relative wealth.
This is the state that doesn't seem to care whether our young people are academically, socially and physically prepared to take on the challenges they'll face as adults.
So, given the current condition of our economy, I guess we shouldn't be surprised by all these budget cuts, all these layoffs, all these reductions in funding for school activities that often contribute as much to the educational experience as anything that happens in class.
And, I suppose, we can't really blame the Florida High School Athletic Association for falling in line and doing its part during this fiscal crisis to make a bad situation worse.
Or can we? Fact is, the FHSAA's board of directors didn't need to approve executive director Roger Dearing's wrong-headed proposal to reduce the number of games teams can play in all sports except football for the next two school years. They didn't need to shrink regular-season schedules by 20 percent for varsity teams and 40 percent for sub-varsity squads.
Certainly, they didn't need to make it mandatory.
They could've made the cuts optional. They could've suggested, even recommended, schedules be reduced. Better yet, they merely could've allowed teams from school districts facing severe budget woes to play fewer games.
But why order across-the-board reductions? Why prevent school districts that can afford to play full schedules from doing so? Why not leave the decision to the local school boards? The FHSAA says it would rather reduce schedules than cut entire sports. That's a wise choice. But was it the only choice? Is it the best choice? The mandatory schedule reductions appear to provide an equitable solution to the budget cuts affecting many Florida school districts. But why does the solution need to be equitable? Does it matter, really -- from a competitive standpoint -- if one baseball, basketball or soccer team plays 25 games and another plays 20? What if one community is willing and able to raise money for its schools' athletic teams and another is not? Truth is, equitable isn't necessarily fair.
This debate, however, goes well beyond the FHSAA's scheduling decision. This problem goes much deeper than high school sports. It goes to the core of how public education is funded in Florida.
Education should be a local issue. A community should be able to decide how much it wants to invest in its school system, as long as it meets a state-set, per-student minimum.
State funding is necessary, of course. So is state regulation. But individual counties should be allowed -- if they're so inclined, if they're willing to pay more in property taxes -- to spend more on their schools.
Not every county would. Most probably wouldn't, given the state's track record of under-funding public education. But, contrary to Florida statutes, every county ought to have the choice.
Same goes for funding high school sports, which can teach valuable lessons that can't be learned in any classroom. And one of those lessons is this: Life isn't fair, even when it's equitable.
That's especially true here, in the great state of Florida, where we know exactly what to do when times are tough.
Take something away from our kids.
(Ray McNulty is sports columnist for Scripps Treasure Coast (Fla.) Newspapers, The Stuart News, Fort Pierce Tribune and Vero Beach Press Journal. Contact him at -ray.mcnulty@scripps.com or on the Web at www.tcpalm.com.)
column
