[User:]

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/sports/highschoolsports/660023-221/cloutier-keeps-cougars-ready-to-pounce.html


Go Lady Cougars!!

[User:]

and what do those schools without money to pay for a trainer do?

[Name:]

and what do those schools without money to pay for a trainer do?

[User:]

After some thinking...I just can seem to put my arms around the point cindy is trying to make...
Are you saying that without Chip the team would have no performed nearly as well this year. What about the coaches, the team, the parents.

What role did they play in the success.

Or are we saying that since there were still some injuries even with (1) trainer, perhaps (2) would reduce the amount even further.....maybe with (3), we would have no injuries at all. I love those kind of gaurantees.

Let's get (4) for good measure becasue after all....it is for the children.

[Name:]

After some thinking...I just can seem to put my arms around the point cindy is trying to make...
Are you saying that without Chip the team would have no performed nearly as well this year. What about the coaches, the team, the parents.

What role did they play in the success.

Or are we saying that since there were still some injuries even with (1) trainer, perhaps (2) would reduce the amount even further.....maybe with (3), we would have no injuries at all. I love those kind of gaurantees.

Let's get (4) for good measure becasue after all....it is for the children.

[User:]

I just finished reading the article ... my personal opinion is that every school needs a trainer ... but I believe Mr. Cloutier goes beyond the scope of what most schools have in a trainer - he is a STRENGH AND CONDITIONING trainer ... he mentions the number of injuries when he first came to CHS ... and now the paucity of injuries because the kids have been strengthened and conditioned to game conditions ...

Pretty much it boils down to this ... if you want the best for your kids, lack of injuries and putting them in the position to win titles, then you need that STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING trainer ... along with the smarts of the kids that are playing and the smarts of the coaches that are coaching.

It matters NOT what other schools do. It should only matter about your own town. It's included in the budget so stop beating a dead horse.

[User:]

Jason

I found the article interesting and glad Cindy posted it. I started dynamic drills several years ago, for myself as well as with the kids I coach. Most of them had been doing static stretching as that was what they were told to do by the various coaches in their school and club teams, so the transition was a work in progress. Most coaches that I have had contact with have no idea about the difference between the two methods or that for most sports, static streching before they start their sporting activity actual hinders their performance. So, my take is that if Chip actual did what the article says, he did in fact make a major contribution to the teams success.

The unstated question as to should the school be providing a trainer for this function, is a different issue.

[User:]

I certainly do not question his abilities or what he DOES in fact bring to us. That is entirely not the point.

Bill,

You hit the nail on the head. I do NOT feel it is the entire taxpaying community's responsiblity.

A point that stuck with me at candidaate's night last night spoke to how much should we all (every taxpayer) pay to provide for the few that benefit.

A trainer may indeed be a wanted item. To what level do we ask every person to pay for it.

[Name:]

I certainly do not question his abilities or what he DOES in fact bring to us. That is entirely not the point.

Bill,

You hit the nail on the head. I do NOT feel it is the entire taxpaying community's responsiblity.

A point that stuck with me at candidaate's night last night spoke to how much should we all (every taxpayer) pay to provide for the few that benefit.

A trainer may indeed be a wanted item. To what level do we ask every person to pay for it.

[User:]

If the school board in general is concerned about the well being of the taxpayers' ability to pay then the school board must make the hard decision about the pay-to-play issue as well as all other activities ... that would gain a lot friends with the taxpayers' wallets ... perhaps the trainer dollars should have been put into a warrant article and allowed the entire town to vote on the issue.

[User:]

Congratulations girls!!!! They won by 13 points. Now on to the Championship game!!

[User:]

Jason, I too typically believe in squeezing a nickel until it screams but we can use that logic with everything and lose sight of the forest for the trees.

If we have pay for play, we aren't mandated to pay for kids of folks who can't afford it, so they are out of luck, as that falls under the "want" to play category.

The Chorus is for learning to sing, why are they going on bus rides to compete? Can't they learn to sing at the school?

The school assumes people have access to computers at home, that is why they have Edline. Why aren't we dropping to the bare minimum numbers of computers per pupil that the state recommends if we already aren't at that level?

Only things that we are required to pay for like SPED, and school lunch for folks who can't afford it would be on the table.

One of the reasons, I believe our sports teams are so good is that alot of our kids already play (and pay) on travel and extracurricular teams where they play more challenging competition and get to excel outside of school. The HS reaps the benefit of that - name recognition and getting good press. For such a small school to be in so many state championships says alot about how seriously the people in the town feel about sports and challenging our youth to do their best. Future leaders of America do it both academically and athletically. GB was a cheerleader, Obama was a basketball player. Harry Reid was a boxer, Reagan was a football player (and lifeguard) (See how deftly I threw both parties in there? )

[User:]

[Name:]

[User:]

Jason, I believe you miss my point. If this is a "want" then why would we pay for kids who can't afford to pay to play? If they can't afford an IPod, which is a want, we wouldn't buy one for them, so why pay for a "want" like playing sports if we don't feel that is critical to building future leaders? (which I do by the way in my previous message)
Food like free lunch is a necessity....

[User:]

Would the 'pay to play' program require that athletes pay the full portion of the athletics budget or a portion of it? This program seems to be pitched to 'lighten the load' but not necessarily eliminate the costs associated with the sports programs.

You could argue that if the taxpayer subsidizes a portion of it the athletics costs, then it would not be fair to exclude students whose families cannot afford the fee...after all, their parents ARE paying a portion of the cost (the taxpayer portion) either directly or indirectly (i.e. renters) through their property taxes.

[User:]

no....I understand your point. You feel it is the community's responsiblity to funnd whatever some believe to be needed and I feel those that participate need to foot a greater share of the bill. It is out of the goodness o the taxpayers hearts to pay for those that can not.

I believe that asking a public what they want for their public institutions...not simply saying everything is included.

[Name:]

no....I understand your point. You feel it is the community's responsiblity to funnd whatever some believe to be needed and I feel those that participate need to foot a greater share of the bill. It is out of the goodness o the taxpayers hearts to pay for those that can not.

I believe that asking a public what they want for their public institutions...not simply saying everything is included.

[User:]

So if it is out of the goodness of the taxpayers' heart to pay or not, those that don't want to foot all the extras should be exempt from paying for the extras ... those that want to can. Not everyone in town anymore can afford all the bells and whistles ...

[User:]

Perhaps for next year's budget, the SB / BC should determine the cost of providing ONLY the mandated requirements. Each and every additional cost - no matter how small - could be issued as warrant articles so the voters can decide EXACTLY what they feel should be included in the public education that they fund. This would require all special interests to pitch their wants to the voters in an effort to win support and it would provide the taxpayers with a better understanding of just how many extras they are paying for. I realize that this would be a bit time consuming, but given the amount of money that we are losing from the state, this would be a good opportunity for the taxpayers to be able to reevaluate their wants with regards to the public education system.

[User:]

Sigh, I guess my point is that if we should only be funding what is mandated and if we have to pay, (which I am fine with), there should be no exceptions and scrap that goodness of the heart stuff. I have even believed that challenging more SPED costs should be something that is pursued by the SB. I have also felt that the SBs should have gotten together and challenged more of the costs being passed on or lobbied harder for a reduction into what is a fair educational costs to be passed onto the taxpayers.

I would also like band, woodworking, chorus and other clubs scrutinized as well, unless all of the teacher/advisor costs are covered by fees paid by the students.

I also just don't like the idea that some kids get more preferential treatment based on what their parents make or don't make. Case in point, if you make 150K and I were to make 35k, why should I get a bigger tax credit for my kids than you because credits for kids are reduced or eliminated at higher incomes? Are my kids better or worth more than yours? Of course not. Redistribution of wealth has always been a lousy idea.