​The Importance and Accessibility of Student Activities

Issue at a Glance | NASSP Position | Recommendations for Policymakers | Recommendations for District Leaders | Recommendations for School Leaders | Download PDF

Issue at a Glance 

Almost all schools in the United States offer several student activities ranging from athletics, music, and drama to honor societies, clubs, service learning, and student councils. Some activities also include core subjects like mathematics and English when students attend them for remediation purposes. Although often termed “extracurricular” activities, they provide students with important developmental opportunities not always afforded during the regular school period. 

Activities can be classified into four distinct categories: 

• Direct extensions of required or elective courses (e.g., science club, math club, and dance club), including opportunities to participate in student national recognition programs administered by NASSP (e.g., National Elementary Honor Society (NEHS), National Junior Honor Society (NJHS), National Honor Society (NHS), and National Association of Student Councils (NASC). 
• Clubs or activities that are expressions of student interest that may be interdisciplinary in nature or not have a direct curricular link (e.g., popular music, dance, chess, editorial magazine, debate, service-oriented, and skateboarding club). 
• Student council or student government opportunities for students to engage in the democratic process and have a voice in the life of the school to the extent allowable by law, policy, or tradition. 
• Interscholastic and intramural athletics that provide students with opportunities for development through sports (e.g., football, track, tennis, and cheerleading). 

Research has documented the academic and social benefits of student activities. Students who participate in these activities achieve higher grades, are more motivated, have fewer discipline problems, are less likely to drop out of school, and are more likely to graduate and apply to college. They have improved academic performance through the development of concentration and time-management skills. Furthermore, limited access to these activities can hinder the development of social belonging and identity during adolescence. 

The benefits are particularly significant for at-risk students, for whom student activities have been found to reduce juvenile crime, provide a sense of connectedness to the school and to their peers, increase self-esteem, drive, and skill, and create positive social networks they might not otherwise have access to. 

Historically, funding for these school-sponsored activities has traditionally been generated through a variety of sources, including annual budget allocations, fundraising events, or other revenue streams such as vending machines. With limited budgets and a trend of moving away from vending machines, schools often struggle to keep activities available to students. To account for funding shortfalls, fees are often charged to develop, sustain or expand these offerings. This “pay-to-play” trend causes fees to range widely from $15 to $2,000 a year in some cases. These fees are sometimes assessed to all students, though more frequently, only to those students who participate in activities. 

U.S. Census Bureau data and related studies reveal a significant “activity gap” in extracurricular participation tied directly to household income levels. This may explain why students in households at or above 200% of the poverty level are much more likely to participate in sports and lessons than those below the poverty threshold. In 2020, 47% of children in families at or above 200% of the poverty level participated in sports, compared to only 23% of children in households below the poverty level—a gap where the higher-income group is more than twice as likely to participate. This disparity is driven by a combination of rising private costs, decreasing school funding, and significant logistical barriers facing low-income families. 

The pay-to-play trend has triggered a legal, philosophical, and educational equity debate. The question centers on whether student activities are part of the free public school system to which everyone is entitled by law. Those in favor of assessing fees argue that activities are not a fundamental part of the education process rising to the level that would require them to be provided at no cost. Those opposed to the pay-to-play system argue that student activities are as important to the school program as academic classes. The debate remains ongoing, and states vary widely in their definition of free education. 

California, New York, and Oklahoma require that any school-sponsored curricular or cocurricular activity be offered free of charge. Some states, such as Texas and Utah, allow schools to charge fees, but require that a waiver process be implemented for low-income students. Other states consider that such activities are not essential, therefore should not necessarily be publicly funded. Furthermore, the pay-to-play model is not implemented uniformly in states where it is allowed. School districts may implement pay-to-play on an as-needed basis, creating further inequities from district to district.