Spending money on soccer field is waste


Spending school money on fields no laughing matter

To the editor:

This has to be a joke. And includes artificial turf, while study after study shows that the bumps and bruises during games played on natural grass often become serious injuries and lifelong handicaps with games played on artificial turf. You can just sense the lawsuits lining up with the sound of the first whistle.

Granted that our school system has some problems, but the lack of an “artificial-turf soccer field” should not be on the “must do” list as our existing natural grass soccer fields are more than adequate for any community of this size.

And a school system that swallows 24 million taxpayer dollars annually has more pressing problems to address than a new soccer venue.

Obviously the primary purpose of our education system should be to academically prepare, to the best of our capabilities, our children for their future lives.

But presently, approximately one-third of the Seymour High School graduating classes come from students enrolled in “The Learning Center” programs, which means that the present classroom activities are only successfully addressing the academic needs of two-thirds of the students.

If “The Learning Center” were providing 10 percent (or less) of the graduating classes, then one could say that existing classroom activities would be acceptable.

Things should have to improve drastically academically in our school system before us taxpayers are forced to fork over $2.2 million for another entertainment venue.

Don’t try to argue about the benefits of “physical education,” which by itself is an oxymoron: physical denotes the use of muscles and education denotes the use of a brain. Muscles can be trained but not taught since muscles can’t think.

This brings to mind that cutting old axiom: “Use that muscle between your ears.” A new soccer field is a waste — not a solution.

John Richcreek


No posts to display