CONFERENCE/WORKSHOP CALENDAR

Sports Elimination         - The Effect of "Cutting" Several issues ago, I had the opportunity to question the impact of cutting students from sports. In using the term "cutting," I specifically refer to the process of eliminating students from the opportunity to attend team practices and receive instruction to help them improve their skills. Cutting has become such a common and accepted practice in US high schools (and in many middle schools) that I have yet to find a single article (other than my own) questioning the practice. Various authors have addressed the value of sports, and pointed out the obvious fact that if you aren't participating then you aren't benefiting. Interestingly, evidence - research based and anecdotal - abounds to illustrate that participants in school athletics tend to do better in school and in life. Nevertheless schools nationwide continue to allow coaches to cut students whose skills are judged to be inadequate. In this issue, I've chosen to link the various thoughts I have had on this topic. These have evolved after several years of deliberation and an effort to present all sides of the issue. What is clear is that most of us who coach have a difficult time empathizing with the low skilled who we eliminate. Most of us were never cut, and never paid much attention to those who were. We have never considered who exactly we are cutting and the impact on these youngsters and their families. We have given lip service to stressing the benefits of sports, without recognizing the irony of eliminating those who would like to participate. And we have confused the goals of professional, entertainment sports, with the goals of educational sports funded by the taxes of all families in our communities. In reading this issue, you have some choices. You can draw conclusions based on an immediate, emotional response to what you read; perhaps as someone who currently coaches and cuts. Alternatively, you could put yourself in the position of a parent of a child who has been cut. Finally, you could attempt to avoid any emotional attachment, and try to look at both sides of the issue and decide who has the stronger case. Whatever side of the issue you fall on, I would encourage you to express your opinion on our PE Forum (click here). It's time this issue received public debate. Steve Jefferies Guest Section Editor

Questions to Ask, or Thoughts to Share?

Click Here!

No-Cut Policy Analysis

Reasons For and Against Implementing a No-cut Policy in a Public School Co-Curricular Program In debating the cutting issue, I felt that I needed to set up the arguments used by the defenders of cutting against the views expressed by no-cut proponents. It ended up that I took on the challenge of arguing both sides of the issue! Few people will suggest that cutting is desirable, but many will argue that it is inevitable and necessary. Interestingly, rarely do cutting defenders express fears that cutting will impact on winning. Similarly, few coaches when asked about their coaching objectives cite winning as the priority. Typically, they defer to the benefits of the experience such as learning teamwork, sportsmanship, a good work ethic, and so on. But their behaviors contradict their verbal expressions. By what they do, it becomes evident that winning is their #1 priority. Defenders of cutting seem to believe that allowing all kids to participate in programs will weaken their programs. This links with the idea of toughening kids ready for real life. I would suggest there is substantially more evidence to suggest that by broadening the foundation of participation we would end up with stronger programs. The more competition for places, the higher the level of performance. It also concerns me to think that during school we should be "toughening" kids. We don't eliminate the poor readers and writers in schools, but rather find ways to improve their skills. Isn't cutting a form of discrimination? We certainly would face legal consequences if we eliminated students in the classroom because of a lack of ability. And, are public schools supposed to be learning environments, not eliminating environments? As I mentioned in the editorial, our schools are after all funded by community tax dollars. Ah, yes you say, but we do cut in the regular curriculum. Not everyone gets to be in school plays, jazz bands, or even to take advanced math classes if their skills are too low. We mislead kids if we don't give them a realistic appraisal of their abilities. But who are we to decide if young people don't have the potential to learn skills in an area that interests them? Parents are constantly surprised by the changes in interests and abilities of their children. Is it realistic to think that a stranger who has 30 kids for a few hours over a couple of weeks can reliably predict the potential of our children? Well, certainly cutting children from the opportunity to learn is one way to guarantee a successful prediction! Finally, defenders of cutting frequently cite the "Michael Jordan" example. Jordan, they claim, was cut from his school basketball team in 9th grade and it obviously didn't hurt him! This is a myth. Jordan was never cut. He was simply moved from one squad to another. He never lost the opportunity to train and practice. Cutting occurs when students lose the opportunity to learn. If Jordan had lost the chance to play ball and was sent back to the streets of his neighborhood, who knows what he would have picked up. Well, if you want to see the two opposing arguments together here's your opportunity, click here!

Miscellaneous

Cutting Sports Budget Draws Ire From Students By Keith Meatto Read how student comments enlivened a public hearing, where some 100 residents debated potential cuts in the Bow school budget.

Proponents of school-sponsored athletics point out that sports: • Are central to American life • Enhance our schools • Enhance family and community life • Raise academic performance • Develop social skills • Reduce risky behaviors • Promote citizenship and ethical behavior • Promote health • Develop self-esteem and self-confidence Although estimates vary, it appears that each year approximately 26 million boys and girls participate in recreational, or competitive in-school and out of school sports. They are coached by an estimated 3 million adults. A 1997 study of high school athletes in North Carolina reported that athletes make higher grades, get into less trouble, graduate at a higher rate, drop out less often, and have higher GPAs than non-athletes. According to the Women's Sports Foundation, female high school athletes are: • 92% less likely to get involved with drugs • 80% less likely to get pregnant • 3 times more likely to graduate than    non-athletes "The evidence supporting sports participation for young people is overwhelming...It has the power to combat everything from racism to low self-image, to the high-school drop-out rate." (Sue Castle, Executive Producer of PBS Sports: Get in the Game) For more quotes and statistics click here.

Why Cutting Students from CO-Curricular Activities is Inappropriate I first began to address the cutting issue when recruited to serve on a school district committee examining our co-curricular programs. The committee consisted of parents and coaches. After numerous discussions and presentations I have learned that the strongest defenders of cutting are coaches. Interestingly, even coaches who do not cut tend to be very supportive of allowing cutting. I attempted to point out the unfairness of recruiting students into what was supposed to be an instructional program, and then telling them they weren't good enough. As someone who organizes a unicycle club for our local community, I pointed out how unsuccessful they would be if they tried once or twice to ride a unicycle! Do I cut kids who can't ride the unicycle after one week? Two weeks? Six weeks? Of course not. If a person has the determination to learn, I believe they should have the opportunity. Is it right then to cut students who want to participate and learn, but who are lower skilled than the rest? Defenders of cutting point out that this is a "real-world" experience. They argue that we can't all be successful at everything we try. We need to learn to accept successes and failures, joys and sadness. My response to this "real world" argument has been to point out that schools are intended to prepare young people for the real world. Why else have schools? Why not just let children learn from life lessons? Let the strong survive - a sort of Darwinian philosophy! I have pointed out that the students who are cut tend to be the very people most unprepared to cope with failure. They are the low skilled, the less confident, those with lower self-esteem, those with less parental support. They also tend to be the late maturers. For more of this discussion, click here.

Implementing change in an educational setting is a challenge. Perhaps because the "cutting" issue affects so few students, it has so far attracted little interest. Recently, I began to interview proponents and opponents of cutting in an effort to create a videotape I could share on the topic. Most interesting however, have been the interviews with students, and the parents of students, who have been cut. I have learned how being cut is minimally embarrassing and somewhat humiliating. I have also learned that removing students from their friends can be devastating. Some students will never try out for athletics again, never attend athletic or even school functions, and may even drop out of school. Parents lose one of the few ways they can stay connected with the lives of their adolescent children. Family life is disrupted as these students are forced to find other activities and friends to fill the void created by sport elimination. A couple of days ago, without prompting, a 73-year old man was discussing sports with me and out of the blue noted that he remembered being cut from a team as a youngster. He told me how much it hurt. It left me wondering again why we persist in this type of behavior, and how the sport experience could possibly be ruined by allowing all children the opportunity to participate.

Great Reading

Keeping College Sports a Part of Education by Linda Bensel-Meyers While students learn to think for themselves in the classroom, they can experience the fruits of hard work, fair play, and teamwork in organized sports. When seen as a part of education, organized sports programs help college students develop their potential as vital members of a community; to learn how their success, in life as well as on the field of play, depends on how well they work cooperatively with others to help everyone become the best they can be. Read the rest of this article.

Join more than 10,000 subscribers currently receiving a biweekly e-mail posting of the latest PELINKS4U news. Enter your email address below, then click the 'Sign Up' button:

No-Cut Policies: Fancies and Facts Discussion on the potential impact of having a "no-cut" policy can become very emotional. Often participants have different perceptions of what exactly it means to 'not cut' students. They especially fear how it will impact on the success of their sport programs. Outlined below is an effort to clarify some of the facts from the fancies! Fancy: Under a no-cut policy, all students would have equal right to choose their level of participation. In other words everyone would have a right to play regardless of their ability. Teams would be weakened. Fact: A no-cut policy would simply guarantee students the right to participate and learn. Selection for teams or representative roles would be based on demonstrated ability. Not-cutting would ensure that the lesser skilled would have equal access to learning opportunities. Terry Orlick, a prominent sport scientist stated, "The process of cutting is a vicious circle for the one who doesn't make it. He is cut because he is not good enough to make it, and is consequently given no opportunity to practice on a regular basis so that he can become good enough to make it; so, he is rejected again the following year." Fancy: Cutting students is necessary because of limited budgets. Fact: The reality is that so few students are ever cut that budget savings are insignificant. Those who cut do not do so for financial reasons. Rarely do any coaches attempt to solicit additional funds to avoid cutting students. They cut, then tend to use budgetary restraints to justify their action. For more on this topic click here.

Common Cutting Reasons

Common Reasons Given for Cutting Kids (and Responses) Coaches who cut, and athletic directors and school officials who justify cutting, typically note the following reasons: • Necessary because of limited    budgets • Better for some students to be cut • Cutting occurs in other areas of the    curriculum • A no-cut policy would weaken    programs • A formal no-cut policy is    unnecessary • Cutting is the "real world" To read the responses I have compiled to these "justifications" for cutting, click here.

Featured Article

Doing What's Best for Kids: Are Athletics Serving their Educational Role? If being a proponent of physical education, a coach, and a parent weren't enough, I also happen to be a school board member. I have had the opportunity to present on the issue of cutting to school board colleagues, and wrote a brief article for the journal of the Washington State School Directors' Association. This was then reprinted in the National School Board Association's School Board News, March 9, 1999. As a school board member, I look at the mission statement of our school district and question how we can justify cutting kids from our co-curricular athletic program. Notice I use the word "CO-curricular" and not extracurricular. If athletics is supposed to support our regular curriculum - which we frequently tend to claim - how can we eliminate students? Look at the mission statement of your district. They tend to be similar. We just don't do what we say we do. To read this article click here.

Contribute YOUR Ideas

If you have ideas, comments, letters to share, or questions about particular topics, please email one of the following Coaching & Sports Section Editors:

	Rich Stratton
	Gibson Darden
	Mike Clark