Rather than make High School sports mandatory how about making it more accessible. -Multiple teams for each sport at every school -No GPA requirements -Lower income pay less or no athletic fees -A team for every skill level We need to encourage our youth to be more active.
I don't athletic activity should be reserved for a small elite. I see way too many heavy children. And too many schools are cutting PE.
I asked on your last thread. Are you a studen in a school proposing such things? I can't imagine either doing away with summer or making HS sports less competitive (considering college recruitment, especially)
Student but in a school not proposing things like that. Just interested in education policy. I want to make positive changes. Should sports be limited to a select few? I don't. I think everyone should get to experience different things. I don't think we should discourage students from participating in an activity because of their GPA. A all work no play childhood would be miserable.
Who coaches all of these different teams? Or, I guess the real question is how do schools pay all of these coaches? Where do all of these different teams practice? Unless they practice together, a school will need multiple gymnasiums, multiple fields, multiple weight rooms and a practice schedule that goes way past when any parent would allow their student to practice (e.g. 10pm practices). When do all of these different teams play? We already have 1 or 2 sporting events a night at my school. Do game start times go into the middle of the night? There are other ways for students to be active that don't involve a team sport (e.g. yoga class). Do you think those should be made readily available by the school as well?
There are multiple opportunities to play sports in many areas. City leagues, little league, soccer leagues,etc. Kids in our areas can start playing tackle football or baseball at very young ages. I played multiple sports in HS and played a lot. After a certain age it becomes very competitive and can be a little dangerous in the case of tackle football. THe way I look at it is some kids shine in art, music, math, English or sports. Hard to have it all. THe best kid usually gets the lead in a play or the brilliant make the academic teams in HS. Heck, I could always get a game of basketball when I wanted it after HS at the local court. Or raquetball or tennis or just go run for my health.
I am absolutely against no gpa requirements and/or low gpa...for many high school students and their families athletics is their ticket into college and then a potential to raise that family out of poverty or whatever. I hate the low gpa our schools require because we have many many talented athletes who go no further than the high school football field, basketball court etc.....and yes their parent(s) should be more involved in their grades but we know many are not and getting out of the area into a college could be what that student needs to better themselves but they can't get into a college.
I've had a basketball coach, a few football coaches and a baseball coach tell me that if I didn't pass a student he wouldn't be eligible for sports. If the student wasn't able to play, he would drop out. I didn't pass any of them and they all managed to stay in school for the next season. I've never known a student with a low GPA that managed to get into college and be successful without someone cheating for them. If they can't handle the academics in high school, they sure can't handle it in college.
I forget the actual name of the article, but I read about a school which abolished sports entirely, and their GPA and scores shot up. I personally think America has too much of an emphasis on sports. I think they are an important motivator for certain students to do better in school, but it's only a motivator if they are required to maintain a minimum GPA.
I believe you, but my experience has been the opposite. The students at my school who are in sports tend to get better grades than those who don't. When one sport season was cancelled one year, grades went down. Some of that has to do with a minimum GPA to play.
So you think athletics should be reserved only for the economically disadvantaged? This is about making these activities accessible to everyone no matter what skill level. A team for those who want to do it for fun not for college tuition benefits or to continue doing it in college.
If somebody can't maintain even a semi-respectable GPA, they don't need to be spending their time on a school-sponsored sport.
What GPA are we talking about? Most schools have a 2.0 to 2.5 GPA requirement which I think is easy but being the egalitarian I am I think all students deserve the same opportunities. How about setting up intramural teams like Colleges?
Agreed.:thumb: I know going into high school, my friends and I could play basketball fairly well. Entering into one of the high schools with one of the best basketball teams in the state, few of us made the team. I know we would have benefited from an intramural basketball team, instead of just one Varsity, one JV, and one freshman team.
Exactly. My husband's last two schools have been short staffed. Finding the money to pay more coaches is going to be difficult. People won't work seventy hour weeks for free.
Intramural sports are a great idea. Some schools do them. The hard part is court and field sharing but I am all for it.
Intramural teams are good. I think they should raise the minimum GPA to 2.5 to 3.0, and ensure that kids aren't missing classes to attend sports meet or practices. All of that should be done after school.
Yeah, I can see how that would happen. But in another article something was said about the GPA of students who weren't in sports in schools where sports were a great emphasis. The better their sports team did at the school, the lower the GPA of non-athletic students.
Who is coaching? Who is paying the coaches? Where do they practice? Where do they play? When do they practice? When do they play? Who is buying uniforms? Who is paying for transportation? Our space and schedule are booked straight time as it is. We have a super-tight budget. The idea of all-inclusive sounds great. The logistics don't support it, though.
Our school has a "no cut" policy, meaning that if you want to play, meet the GPA, and do not get kicked off of the team for behavior or missing practice, you may participate. Students not making varsity teams play JV. We have three different JV volleyball teams, and a freshman team. Cheerleaders who do not make varsity or JV may be on pep squad. We have an active athletic booster club. We also have an active academic foundation, which acts like a booster club, but for classroom teachers! In fact, their money cannot go to extracurriculars, only to instruction. I love how our programs are set up!
While I appreciate the desire to get youth more involved in sports and athletics, I don't think these are the best ways to go about it. More sports teams should be a community concern not just limited to schools. I'd wager most schools couldn't handle financially or staff-wise multiple teams for every sport and teams to match every skill level. A drop in GPA requirements is going to keep far too many students from thinking about their grades. Just because you can play football well enough to attract a college does not mean you'll be able to get a degree. School is first and foremost about learning. I love the idea of school sports, but let's not replace learning and preparing for the future. A sliding scale for sports fees for those who truly struggle to pay them is a grand idea. Though I say many schools already have such a policy in place. Personally, I think expecting schools to take full responsibility for a student's health, weight, and athletic school is pure babysitting. High school students especially should have the wherewithal to take care of themselves. I'm all for P.E. class and even school-sponsored sports, but really! Intramural sports are also a good idea, but I would like to avoid the "trophy for everyone!" mentality.
That would shrink the pool of students. This is about making sports available to everyone. Not every student is capable of a 3.0. The C students deserve a fun childhood too. Maybe the real question is how to do we tell the difference between a student who struggles and a student who slacks off. I am an egalitarian who believes the same opportunities should be made What about the 2.8-2.9 students who try their best? Do they deserve a bland boring childhood? Whether we like it or not all students do not have the same intellectual capabilities.
The teams I had in mind would play it for fun not to continue it in college or get some scholarship. What is wrong with education is we have a one size fits all system. We are conformists and don't respect the individuality and uniqueness of each student. Apologies if I appear to be too sensitive and sound too idealistic.
Sorry, not buying the idea that there are kids who can't get a B average. An A average, absolutely. An A average requires a certain amount of ability. A B average is perfectly attainable for anyone who puts in the work, puts forth some effort, and doesn't over-aim when selecting classes. I've tutored multiple high school students with IEPs for severe learning disabilities that have managed to keep a B average, basically through sheer hard work. And frankly, a school's first priority needs to be a student's academics. If those aren't up to snuff, they don't need to be spending ten+ hours a week on a sport. Period, end of story. You can have a perfectly fun childhood without participating in athletics, but if participating in athletics are that important, either put forth the effort in school, or find a sports program that isn't being sponsored and paid for by taxpayers.
But once again, why should the school be the only one responsible for a kid's childhood? That should be family first and foremost. A student has serious issues if he can't figure out to have a fun and fulfilling youth without everyone around him scheduling him for activities.
All the GPA and desire issues aside, it's still a money and space issue. And really? A bland boring childhood because you're not on a specifically school-sponsored sports team? That's weak. I'd argue that the arts are just as, if not more, vital to not having a "bland boring childhood." If a kid wants to play ball and can't make the GPA requirement (in my high school it's 2.5), then they play community ball. Or they work to get their grades up. Very simple.
You are so lucky that you have never taught in an environment where students do not struggle academically, or the academic standards at your school are considerably lower than at my school. In fact, in all of Louisiana, to get full college tuition at any state college, you need only maintain a 2.5 GPA on certain core classes. Why on earth would the requirements for sports be higher than that. Our schools who have the highest athletic achievement also have the highest academic achievement, because they tend to have the most money.
I don't dispute the fact that many students DON'T earn 3.0s, or that many students will never never earn 3.0s. I dispute the idea that there are students who are incapable of earning 3.0s. Putting that aside though, I don't have any particular preference on where exactly the GPA cut-off is, but I don't see 3.0 as being particularly unfair. 2.5 is probably a more reasonable number though.
I didn't play sports in school and I didn't have a bland/boring childhood. There are plenty of other things students can do other than sports.
At my school students only had to be passing 2/4 of their core classes to be on an athletic team. So yeah, that exists.
Ah no, where did you get that from my response? If they are looking to do it for fun then the programs being offered at school(middle and high) is not for them, imo. There is a lot more being taught on the athletic field than the actual "sport" and I don't think many people understand that. Hard work, team work, learn how to deal with failure(a loss) and success(a win), discipline, critical thinking, perserverance, social skills, leadership abilities, goal setting, value of practicing and being prepared and much more all of these things can benefit them in the classroom and further in life in the "real" world. Even those who are not "economically" disadvantaged need help paying for college.
and most coaches are your teachers getting a very small stipend for the amount of time the spend practicing and then attending the games.
You have not responded to the MULTIPLE posts on how sports/fitness opportunities ARE AVAILABLE in many communities. Putting the onus on schools which are already tightening their financial belts results in just another unfunded mandate. It's not that hard for those with desire and drive to find opportunities, or to create opportunities for what they want and need.
I still think setting up intramurals is still a good idea but if schools don't have the money then they shouldn't do it. If students and their parents wanted to start another team then they should pay for the uniforms and equipment. I agree that there are other things students can do that are just as enriching. I have a friend who is a competitive cheerleader. There are a lot of dance and cheer squads outside of the school environment. I imagine it is the same for other sports.
