It’s the bond election’s second proposition that might cause heartburn for some voters: $9.75 million for renovation and expansion of the district’s football stadium. After all, teaching academics is the primary goal for schools, and the Keller district has its hands full just providing the classroom space to keep up with its fast-growing enrollment.
True, but no Texas school district can afford to ignore the needs of its athletic and other extracurricular programs for adequate facilities where they can participate in their various activities and where parents and other spectators can watch them perform. No one should deny that these activities contribute greatly to school life and to the development of many young people.
So does the last sentence mean that no one should deny the activities because they do contribute greatly or because those who deny it might be burned at the stake if they do?
Also, did you notice how the paragraph talks about multiple programs and facilities, suggesting this is more about improving the entire extracurricular activities of the student population? It’s a bond issue for improving one football stadium. Maybe the band might appreciate a larger audience or even members of the track and field team. But lets face it, this doesn’t even include all the sports related extracurricular activities, never mind theater, art, etc.
Football is important to the community and since football is played by high school students it is therefore important that the school has a better stadium. Spare me the arguments about how many students benefit from the football program. I’m fairly certain the same amount of money could be spent directly on college scholarships or personal tutors with greater impact on the students and the community.