To the Editor:

A few points about high school sports’ pay to participate fees, as reported in The Bee’s good coverage of the January 31 BOE meeting, merit amplification. The newly proposed fee structure deserves recognition for taking meaningful first strides to address long-standing inequities in total costs to participate among various sports. The administration has found a way to do this at no additional cost to the general tax paying population. Further, the new structure arguably creates little additional burden on families whose children play high school sports. Further still, the proposal addresses existing imbalances across all sports, including gymnastics, softball, girls golf, and others. While disparities for ice hockey are among the largest, and the proposal includes additional, greatly appreciated departmental support, most of hockey’s essential operating costs will continue to be funded by parents.

During the 2017/2018 budget cycle, it came to light that some sports were dependent on parent payments — directly or through booster clubs — for critical expenses. This included such things as buying balls, providing transportation, or even renting a place to play as in the cases of softball, gymnastics, hockey, and others. The magnitude of these costs borne by families was not previously apparent. In response, the BOE froze plans to reduce pay to participate fees until an examination of the total expenses paid by student athletes was conducted.

It is important to consider the impact of the proposed pay to participate structure in view of what it was for 2016/2017, just prior to an incremental reduction implemented before these funding gaps were identified. Newtown offers 34 athletic programs, a number comparable to other area high schools. A flat fee results in an increase of $10 for 12 sports and a reduction of $40 for 14 sports. Three sports are unchanged. The remaining five have an increase of more than $50 but are coming off either no or a very low fee since they previously received relatively little support. Additional funding is now planned.

It is difficult to appropriately stratify fees based on actual resources used. For example, consider golf. Golf has relatively few direct expenses. Through donations from local courses, neither participants nor the athletic department must pay what would amount to about $1,500 per player in greens fees. It would seem reasonable to ask golfers to pay a participation fee to share in defraying overall athletics department expenses even though directly attributable costs are low. Playing in connection with a high school team is what prompts such gracious generosity.

The proposed plan takes steps to “level the playing field” across all sports by reducing the extent to which parents pay directly for essential needs. It does so at minimal cost to athlete’s families and at no additional cost to the taxpayer. It is a giant leap from where things were and is taken with laudable fiscal responsibility — the kind of approach needed, especially in these challenging financial times.

Dennis Brestovansky

11 Longview Heights Road, Newtown         February 4, 2019