If there is one thing my long-suffering editor really likes (Ed: uh oh…) it’s when I offer thoughts on a subject that lots and lots of other people have already written about (Ed: um, no!). And so today, I thought I’d write yet one more opinion piece on John Hickenlooper ending his run for the presidency, and his nascent run for the U.S. Senate (Ed: seriously, we’ve got that covered…)

Oh, well fine, I’ll write about kids’ sports.

A recent news story talked about a major shift in the demographics of youth sports in the schools. It seems that income differences are manifesting themselves in how many kids play after-school sports. Families with incomes over $100,000 saw seven of 10 kids participating in sports. For those families with incomes less than $25,000, fewer than three in 10 kids played. The article suggests that middle-class and poor families simply can’t handle the activity fees schools must charge those participating in sports. Families with incomes of $50,000 or less – traditionally thought of as the middle class – cited the high cost of sports as the number one reason why their kids were not involved in athletic programs.

Which brings us to an interesting question – should all kids, regardless of income, be able to play school sports? As a high school football official, I have seen differences between kids from better off schools and those from less well-off ones. Some of the kids have the nicest shoes, the fanciest gloves, and other markers of wealth. Other kids, from less affluent families, make do as they can, and as noted above, huge numbers just don’t participate. 

Remarkably, the authors of the study note that this major shift in participation has occurred within a single generation. This is yet another example of how the growing income gap between the well-off and the less well-off manifests itself in your kids’ daily lives.

Many (maybe even most?) of the parents of kids I referee think their little one is destined for a college scholarship and then, the NFL. The numbers of kids who actually get such results is stunningly small. Only about 2% of high school athletes will earn a scholarship for college, and then 1.5% of that 2% will reach professional sports. So, betting that little Susan or Johnny is the next Tom Brady is not likely to pay off. So why play sports in school? Well, for most of the kids I see, they find it fun and instructive. Learning teamwork, personal responsibility and other benefits accrue from playing on the fields of friendly strife.

Most folks, I suspect, think it reasonable that the public schools their kids attend provide the basic necessities of scholarship. In Colorado, rental fees may be charged for books, but those fees often pale in comparison to the costs of, say, outfitting a youngster for football or hockey. Thus, we are increasingly seeing kids priced out of participation. Now, I know what you may be thinking – why should my tax dollars pay for kids’ sports? I think the answer to that question comes down to what you feel can reasonably called a core part of education. Even though I taught political science at the AF Academy for 15 years, I still see pedagogical value in after-school activities, such as sports. 

Which leads us to the question, should schools be allowed to charge fees for athletics and other such activities, or should all kids, regardless of income, be able to participate? I readily admit that this is not an easy question. Sports cost the schools money, and school budgets are already stretched so thin that a surprisingly large number of school districts only hold classes four days per week to save money. When money is so short, it is not surprising that “extra” stuff gets cut or turns into a “pay to play” situation. 

Coming from a family of teachers, at all levels, I’ve never really understood why so many people are angry about their school system and feel taxes should be lowered. I’m rather the opposite, in that I agree with Thomas Jefferson and others that schools – and a proper education – are vital to our future as a nation. While you might not have kids in school now, and you think school taxes are unfair, you may well get sick at some point in the future, and I’m guessing you would want a very well-educated doctor looking after you. 

And so, I’ll just say it: school taxes should be raised to a level that supports after-school activities, such as sports, properly. I don’t think a poor child has any less interest in football, for example, than a wealthy kid. I can see about 1% of you out there agreeing on raising taxes, and the rest are outraged at my suggestion. But our future as a state and a nation cannot be any brighter than the schools that educate the children of today.  Shall we invest in a better future?

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.