The New Segregation

I remember a hockey player at Edina High in 1985 telling me to play hockey for the year cost his family $3000.  That covered equipment, team fees and the expensive ice time.  Back then, it was a staggering amount of money, even for Edina, over $8000 a year when adjusted for inflation, but that $8000 today might not even get you on the JV squad of today's most competitive High School programs.  As costs to participate skyrocket, not just for sports but for everything, we've created a 'new' version of segregation, one that eliminates participation for most middle and lower income families.

This article is in no way an effort to diminish traditional segregation, a disgusting scab on our country's history, an abhorrent policy which even today has it's champions.  Where traditional segregation was used in the past to separate different minority and religious groups from the predominate white population, today's modern version is just as wrong, undeniable, but, for the most part, being implemented unintentionally.  It's a system which has eliminated the opportunity for most kids to advance financially upwards via scholarships; pricing almost all school activities out of reach for most families.

I started realizing the new segregation was a problem not in sports, but rather in music.  At my kid's school's band concert, it was my daughter who noticed the shocking lack of minority students participating in the music program.  There were a few (7), but the vast majority of kids, in a school district with a 55-45% caucasian to minority ratio, were white.  Considering music has universal appeal, I started wondering why the minority participation rate was so low.  I focused on the cost.    All three of my kids have instruments, so I'm fully aware of the participation costs.  After beginner music programs (in elementary school), costs begin to kick in around junior high.  It's then participation becomes more expensive, with specialty bands, private lessons and auxiliary costs which start dampening participation numbers. Considering the demographic make up of wealthy Americans is a mostly caucasian, and the demographic makeup of America's lower class has a much higher minority ratio, that might explain the lower minority participation rate in band.  Then it dawned on me; with the extra costs involved, it was more likely ALL lower income families were being excluded due to extra financial burden.

A friend told me an even scarier music program revelation; there are some school districts where to even be considered for the top level bands, the child HAS TO be paying for private lessons.  Cheap private lessons are $100 a month, meaning to participate in the top bands at some schools requires AT LEAST an additional $900 a school year, an amount which is the entire disposable income for many American families today.  I didn't believe it, only to be informed by others it's a rigid standard, with very few exceptions.  There are high school bands where regardless of how good you are, if your parents don't have the money, you can't play at the top level.

I'm sure those schools would insist they make exceptions for kids who are worthy of inclusion but have limited financial options, but the message before the tryouts is always very clear; 'this is the amount you HAVE TO PAY to participate.' Some innovative schools offer fundraising opportunities to offset costs, but if you are living in a lower income neighborhood, it might be harder for you to find people willing to make a purchase for a plant or wreath sale, especially when most of the fundraisers are more of the 'premium' variety.

The cost of sports in obnoxious.  The days of a few hundred dollar participation levels are gone.  You have sign up costs, equipment costs, fundraising requirements, specially coaching, specialty clinics, off season teams and travel expenses.  Even for sports without heavy duty equipment costs, the price is a few thousand dollars per year, or more.  For a sport with a lot of equipment and more competition to participate, you're looking at $7000 to $10000, per year, to participate in one activity, and there's still no guarantee your kid will even make the roster.  It makes it near impossible for kids whose families aren't able to afford these advantages to even make the beginner or junior squads.

A few years back, some parents on my kid's sports teams starting sending their kids to participate in high profile tournaments, held across the country, with a 'professionally' coached 'all-star' team, at $3000 to $5000 per weekend!  That number factors in not only the cost for the tournament, and team roster, but for the flights and hotel rooms needed not only for the kid, but for the family who would pay big money to travel to Las Vegas, or LA, or Miami to go sit on some regional baseball fields for a weekend.  Sometimes their kids would play a lot that weekend.  Sometimes they'd ride the bench, but they would send the kids out five or six times a year to these weekend specialty clinics.  It seemed like a massive waste of money, but these kids, with the high end coaching and training, get results.

Most of the kids whose families are at the top end of the spending are playing varsity. Middle class families with their less expensive, 'inferior' $3000 - $4000 annual training programs, are playing down a level.  Lower income kids are not participating at all.  The wealthiest student athletes forgo the high school experience all together, instead playing for hyper competitive club teams from places like The Domination Zone or Winner's Pro Sports Training (made up names), traveling internationally, usually with college scouts in tow.

And once again, it's not just sports.  To be considered for the lead in the school musical or play at one public school, you have to be taking high end acting classes and have appeared in a major show in town.  Even one time clubs like chess, debate and junior UN are now being infiltrated with camps, clubs and excursions to "help your kid get the advantage!"  My son has been offered a chance to travel internationally for three weeks to learn international world leadership, to "better prepare your child for a position in student government."  The cost, $10,000.  We passed.

The financial advantages start earlier and earlier for kids.  The days of walking onto a sports field for the first time at 12, picking up an instrument at 14, or starting in community theater at 16 are long gone.  Some elementary school kids are already on traveling teams.  If parents haven't already been spending outrageously by (in some cases) 7 to 10 years old, their kid's window is already closing (for soccer and hockey particularly).  Some schools offer financial assistance programs, but most families, when confronted with applying for assistance annually, fundraising constantly and trying to overcome the training disadvantage, eventually opt out of participating.  And then there is the demands for parents beyond the money.  If you don't have a car, or if you're a single parent working two jobs, who's going to get your kid to these classes, clubs, clinics and games?

And the damage to lower income families being pushed out of all these actives goes beyond their kid's individual participation.  Due to drastic conservative budget cuts, many schools no longer offer advanced academics kids need to get into college.  As quality of education suffers, the options for lower income families are further limited.  If they can't open enroll, or don't have the money for private school, the best they can do is shoot for top scores in the basic classes and hope it will be good enough.  When it comes time to take the SAT's or ACT's, kids in lower funded schools are less prepared (for the record, you can take prep and practice tests for those too, if you have the money).

People can spend their money however they want, and if they choose to spend it helping their kids, more power to them.  This is not about wealth shaming the individual.  They're just using the products available.  This is why I believe a large part of this problem is unintentional.  One parent who could afford it opted for a pricer training regiment and better equipment, followed by another wealthy family and then another, and so on.  I don't think most parents were saying "Not only will my kid get ahead, but that poor kid will get left behind. WIN!"  I don't think schools were asking "how do we limit participation by the student body in these activities."

Regardless, with our current system, wealthy parents are able to buy their kids a scholarship.  Scholarships (academic, athletic and activity based) are being gobbled up not by the best of the best, but rather the best of the wealthiest.  The opportunities for lower income families to achieve a post K-12 education for their child is growing smaller.

What can be done to reverse this?  I have no freaking idea.  It's a mess.  No college is going to offer the school musical's understudy an acting scholarship.  No college is going to offer the first trumpet in the school's secondary band a scholarship.  No college is going to offer the JV player a scholarship.  No college is going to offer the kid who has good grades at a substandard school with no advanced classes an academic scholarship.  The current system is for the wealthy, predominantly white kids, and not for the poorer, predominantly minority families.  It's the new segregation.

Here's my recommendation: save that money.  Get your kid into a school which offers advanced classes, especially in the STEM categories.  Sit down and help your kid with their homework.  If they can get through school with A's, your kid will likely get into college, and with all the money you didn't spend, you might be able to afford it.  After they graduate, maybe they'll be successful enough to where their kids might be able to participate.

One thing I can guarantee: this new segregation will get FAR worse before it gets better.