High School Help - Texas (Plano, Coppell: school districts, colleges, tax rates)

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by UnfairPark

Well, it doesn’t matter people play their instrument to the grave or not, music is beneficial for growing and aging minds alike and also a stress reliever. It is an investment for fields of math and science as well.

1). Well when the hand is spend money on orchestra that nearly no one will use long term or spend that money on math, science etc. which many will use often that a tick mark in against orchestra.

2). There are lots of stress relievers that don't cost anything approaching orchestra.

3). How would orchestra be an investment in math and science?

[calgirlinnc]

Originally Posted by EDS_

Until a few years ago an acquaintance was on the Southlake School Board. Orchestra came up over and over. The FAQ logic why he decided not to back the effort was high per participant start up and surprisingly high ongoing costs with little defraying income, scheduling difficulties, band offered a close substitute and the clincher for him was wouldn't X amount of money be better spent on upgrading math and science efforts? And that's what they did. He also laid hands on a study indicating an overwhelming majority of high school orchestra participants put their instrument down after high school and rarely or never play again.

How many football players keep playing after high school?

Football of all sports or programs probably sees the sharpest drop off in participation as students age.

If the criteria is possible longevity of participation, schools should be pushing golf.

[UnfairPark]

Originally Posted by calgirlinnc

How many football players keep playing after high school?

Football of all sports or programs probably sees the sharpest drop off in participation as students age.

If the criteria is possible longevity of participation, schools should be pushing golf.

@EDS_ This^.

As far as benefits of learning to play musical instruments on learning of math and sciences, there is no shortage of studies out there.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by calgirlinnc

How many football players keep playing after high school?

Football of all sports or programs probably sees the sharpest drop off in participation as students age.

If the criteria is possible longevity of participation, schools should be pushing golf.

That misses what I thought was a clear part of the picture because football at a place like Southlake produces significant defraying income every year, net profits many years, more people participate and further more people participant at a much lower per-pupil costs even in financially negative years.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by UnfairPark

@EDS_ This^.

As far as benefits of learning to play musical instruments on learning of math and sciences, there is no shortage of studies out there.

C&P'd.......
That misses what I thought was a clear part of the picture because football at a place like Southlake produces significant defraying income every year, net profits many years, more people participate and further more people participant at a much lower per-pupil costs even in financially negative years.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by UnfairPark

@EDS_ This^.

As far as benefits of learning to play musical instruments on learning of math and sciences, there is no shortage of studies out there.

Post one please. I know where you are going with this and you've got the logic precisely backwards. Within age relevant kids orchestra etc. does not drive IQ/SAT scores/achievement up. Smarter/brighter/more driven kids are interested in orchestra than the genpop of students that is all.

[calgirlinnc]

Originally Posted by EDS_

That misses what I thought was a clear part of the picture because football at a place like Southlake produces significant defraying income every year, net profits many years, more people participate and further more people participant at a much lower per-pupil costs even in financially negative years.

Right, it's the money maker. I get that.

But it's supposed to be the money maker so that other kids can have orchestra/theater/choir/whatever.

Otherwise, football focuses resources on a limited number of kids who actually *participate*. Everyone else is expected to *watch*.

There are huge investments in facilities and programs for football that are limited to one gender and very few students. The argument could be made that the same amount of money should be invested in programs that benefit more students or benefit them in other ways. When you eliminate programs like orchestra that do that, you take away one of the reasons for having football in the first place.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by calgirlinnc

Right, it's the money maker. I get that.

But it's supposed to be the money maker so that other kids can have orchestra/theater/choir/whatever.

Otherwise, football focuses resources on a limited number of kids who actually *participate*. Everyone else is expected to *watch*.

There are huge investments in facilities and programs for football that are limited to one gender and very few students. The argument could be made that the same amount of money should be invested in programs that benefit more students or benefit them in other ways. When you eliminate programs like orchestra that do that, you take away one of the reasons for having football in the first place.

1). At no school around here with the possible exception of HP does football reliably generate enough money to pay for all of the things you mentioned.

2). So far as value to non-participants.......how many people would go watch a high school orchestra performance every week for free? How many for $10 per? High school football offers all kinds of spillover/indirect benefits to a degree something like orchestra does not - a social/community gathering place, great ops to showcase marching bands, great ops to showcase drill and cheer squads etc. Plus it self funds to a significant degree at many schools.

3). Again orchestra is expensive nearly no school clears enough from football to pay for orchestra. So your last point rings hollow to me.

[calgirlinnc]

Originally Posted by EDS_

1). At no school around here with the possible exception of HP does football reliably generate enough money to pay for all of the things you mentioned.

2). So far as value to non-participants.......how many people would go watch a high school orchestra performance every week for free? How many for $10 per? High school football offers all kinds of spillover/indirect benefits to a degree something like orchestra does not - a social/community gathering place, great ops to showcase marching bands, great ops to showcase drill and cheer squads etc. Plus it self funds to a significant degree at many schools.

3). Again orchestra is expensive nearly no school clears enough from football to pay for orchestra. So your last point rings hollow to me.

1). It was not ALL of those items. Those were examples.

2) We will never know, will we? Because football in HS is so entrenched in our culture. Cheer squads...again, how many girls? 20 or 30 out of how many? Marching band is great, but they aren't playing Beethoven and Bach and Mozart, are they? We lament how schools here aren't as good as schools in Asia and Europe. Maybe their priorities are better than ours.

3). Schools and communities afford what they want to afford.

I have nothing against football. But the benefits you are touting seem to me overly hyped when one considers the actual number of students who play. One of your arguments against orchestra was that few students play after HS. Even fewer students continue to play organized football after HS. So your point is ill-suited as a criterion.

[adixyz]

Originally Posted by EDS_

To underscore couple of things.
1). The Robotics Club kids won a world championship not the world championship. There are several different entities who run tournaments and crown champions. That said the FMHS kids won a one of if not the best tournament. Good for them.
2). Pretty sure you understand this but just to be clear Stanford and MIT are not in The Ivy League.
3). Relative to other flagship universities UT Austin offers very little merit based scholarship money - they simply don't have to.

It was a World Championship against 566 National/Regional finalists from over 30 countries, so you cannot discount their hard earned achievement. FMHS have a strong Robotics program that supports both Vex and First Robotics. Some high schools have First Robotics, some offer Vex and others both. There are different events and we can debate whether Vex or First Robotics is better, but in reference to the STEM education or pursuit towards excellence, it doesn't matter.

Agree, UT don't have to offer merit based scholarship but their department like Cockrell college of engineering does. This is mostly in the range of 25% - 100% of the Tuition fees. Not everyone gets it and I don't know the qualifying criteria but last year their undergraduates received more than $5.6 million in merit-based awards.