A recent letter writer stated that a general increase in the sports fee to $250 is a fair price to pay, considering the value that kids get from sports and saving other items from the chopping block by this increase. While agreeing wholeheartedly about the value of sports participation to students and schools, the cost side of the equation deserves more introspection and investigation.

First, the actual increase is from $75 to $275 – a jump of $400 for a two-sport student. This 260% fee increase is applied equally across all sports, regardless of actual sport cost to the district, so a sport like cross country that is already close to break-even with low equipment costs plus self-fundraising ends up subsidizing more expensive sports like football.

Sadly, having low-cost sports subsidizing the expensive ones is a best-case scenario in the current plan. A more likely outcome is that the lower-cost, no-cut sports that rely on large numbers of participants – often as a second sport – to function properly will experience a sharp drop-off in participation, with some decimated teams ceasing operation entirely.

So during a time of tight budgets, we end up with fewer kids in low-cost sports; This is exactly the opposite of what we need. Sports participation fees should be proportional to the actual budget impact of the sport, with more expensive sports receiving the biggest fee increase.

Bob Forgrave, Kirkland