That doesn't really fit my experience. Both my parents were working hard hours when I was in highschool and my participation in after-school sports meant that I was occupied until they finished out their work day (which ends in the evening, contrasting with the schoolday which ended in the early afternoon.) Practice before school was convenient for the same reason; my dad had to leave for work at 4:30am, and my practice started at 5am, so that worked out well.

That's a nice anecdote.

In the real world, though, athletics keep at-risk kids in school and trying to get grades because they want to play and need to make satisfactory progress in order to do so. Athletics have helped a ton of kids grow into prosperous adults because it kept them invested in their educations until they realized that it's what they needed to do anyway.

In better-run countries, poor kids don't need to be picked up by parents, or take a bus home; instead, they just walk home.

The notion that there's anything inherently wrong with walking is really bizarre.

Of course that is bizarre.

It is also bizarre to make a claim about "better run" countries where people just walk home instead of other transport methods

Edit: You seem to be having a conversation with yourself and making points that no one is arguing with. Maybe try replying to what people say instead of forming a different argument and then attacking that.

I don't think it's bizarre to say that urban planning that prioritizes walkability is 'better'. Sure it's opinionated which may be taboo these days, but is it a bizarre opinion? No, I don't think so.

Of course there are plenty of American communities that I'd describe as highly walkable, but even then you have social matters to contend with, such as rampant "stranger danger" paranoia and lawsuit culture that, in America, have some school district in walkable communities forbidding students to walk to school for liability/paranoia reasons. I don't think it's bizarre to describe communities without those two issues as 'better.'

You've completely changed your argument. First it was "sports have nothing to do with receiving a basic education." Now you concede that participating in sports can be a big positive, but in some cases a positive only available to the children of richer students.

To that I say:

1) Plenty of poor kids do find ways to participate in school sports. Let's not throw that baby out with the bathwater.

2) Where this is not possible, it would be better to find ways to make it possible than to get rid of something good for everyone.

I never said sports were bad. Organized team sports after-school are not part of a basic education. Since after-school sports activities favor the well-off, we should not use public funds for such activities. Those education dollars should be spent to help the education part, not the rich-kid sports part.

If you want to have public sports programs, that's fine. It has nothing to do with school, should be an entirely separate pool of money, and IMO, should be entirely self-funded.