No 2.0 GPA?...done for the YEAR.

Been coaching here in Charlotte, NC for a while. We've had the 2.0 GPA rule, and kids must pass 6 out of 8 classes to play. Plus we also have the incoming freshmen 2.0 rule. Coaches absolutely hate the incoming freshmen rule, if you guys are adopting this stuff get ready to lose a number of kids to tutoring in the offseason like we've had to do, and I'm at an inner city school. Have and have nots here are a huge gap, but we deal with it the best way we know how.

A student who is unable to earn a 2.0 GPA in a high school classroom either has something organically wrong w/ them, or they simply refuse to do the work. Nine times out of 10, it's the latter. The whole argument that by not letting these kids play, they are less likely to come to school, doesn't hold much water w/ me. It really doesn't make much difference, since they're not working, anyhow. If they have a 1.5 GPA, and yet, they still show up to class on a daily basis, they're more than likely just a distraction to other students. After all, they're sitting in the classroom, but they're not doing the work they've been assigned, so they must be doing something else, it's highly unlikely that it's sitting quietly w/ their hands folded on their desk. So, if these kids quit coming to school, b/c they're not being rewarded for doing a half-assed job, that's completely on them. There are plenty of other kids working hard every day, and if they choose not to do so, they have no one to blame but themselves.

And, while I agree that high school GPAs are not the end-all, be-all of intelligence, again, if you can't earn a 2.0 GPA in high school, you have much bigger problems than whether or not you can take part in extracurricular activities. Asking high school students to conform to a 2.0 GPA is a textbook example of the golem effect, which states that when lowered expectations are placed upon followers by a leader, the followers are significantly more likely to turn in a weak performance that will match the lowered expectations. Conversely, the Pygmalion (or Rosenthal) effect is when a leader places high expectations upon followers, the followers are significantly more likely to turn in strong performances that match the heightened expectations.

Some of the best athletes I've coached had less then 2.0 GPAs. Rough home life, slow learner, IEP, didn't care about school, whatever. Not everyone is going to college. A few of my players graduated, went on to be mechanics, construction workers, whatever.
Our policy was a 1.66. Sports keeps a lot of kids IN school.
I guess I was one of those not so smart kids, because for a time, my GPA floated below 2.5 my junior year (pulled myself together and have the degree to prove it), but if it wasn't for baseball, or knowing my football eligibilty was in question for my senior year, I woulnd't have cared about school at all.

It just seems crazy to say that you did well enough in school to graduate but not well enough to play sports. It seem crazy to do well enough in school by passing a class and earning the privilege to move to the next grade or subject, but not be allowed to play sports.

Here is another argument: essentially the school is saying that we care about football players MORE than our students. If a higher GPA is what we are after, then why do we allow students to graduate with poor GPA's. If you have to have a 2.5 GPA to play football, but less than that to graduate, how is that helping kids lives? If the higher GPA requirement is to make football players better people, then why not apply that to every kid at school regardless of what they their extracurricular activities are.

I dont think 2.0 it an arbitrary number. Most teachers Ive known teach a class where a "C" can be accomplished by completing the work and putting forth an effort (and this effort tends to be relative to the student population with which they work with). All C's get you a 2.0, thus thats where its set. And heck that doesnt even account for PE, and all the electives that can bump you up

My issue isn't with the standard. The kids will raise their GPAs if football means enough to them. My issue is with the duration of the suspension and the absence of an academic probation type of program.

I had a freshmen who just didn't get it. He didn't understand that education was a personal responsibility. He messed up his freshmen year and was at a 1.65. We have an academic probation program where if you drop below a 2.0, we monitor your grades weekly and you go to tutoring twice a week on the days they have early dismissal (so as not to miss practice). If your grades slip lower on a weekly basis or it isn't up to a 2.0 by the next grading period then you're done with sports until the next grading period. You're allowed one academic probation deal for your four years.

This kid got on academic probation, we didn't even know it was an issue until then, and we got after him to change. He fell in love with football and got his stuff together. Turns out the kid's dad died and he didn't care about homework much that year. He's getting DI attention this year. This kid is a nobody without that program in place. He would've been hanging out on the corner, selling the dope he hasn't already smoked. This debate is about those kids. The kids on the fringe. They're the ones that suffer.

In this particular instance, the word arbitrary has little to do with random selection.  Arbitrary by definition is defined as: something determined by chance, whim, or impulse.  More importantly, it also suggests that it is something subject to individual judgment or preference.  

So in essence, the number itself is arbitrary.  It is simply based on someone's preference.  

Furthermore, IMO, letter grades themselves are arbitrary.  Letter grades have very little to do with actual learning.  True learning. True education.  In other words, a true quest for knowledge.  

How many times have we seen that kid that "grade grubs" but isn't really putting forth effort or turning in the type of work that would warrant the 'A' he/she is asking for?  How many times have we seen the kid that is in an honors class because he has great tests scores, but can't put together a five paragraph paper or solve a basic equation to save his life?

If you've coached long enough, you've been blessed to work with the kid that may struggle in the classroom, even with behavior or character issues, but he can dissect an offense, tell you the tendencies verbatim, know the height/weight/home address/social security number/blood type/flavor of chewing gum of the opposing running back.   

We would all agree that learning comes in various different forms.  But the most foundational part of the message is being lost. Meaning: what we do, is we can get that kid that can break down film and study it with a passion, because he absolutely loves it, to spend a little time breaking down an equation, even though he absolutely hates it.  Through this process/relationship, a higher classroom achievement is reached.

Our influence reaches far beyond some man-made arbitrary number and serves to counter their poor classroom effort with their passion for game time effort.

 

GPA is an arbitrary number. You can have a 2.0 with failing classes as long as you get A's in easy classes. You can also have a 4.0 but never take a single challenging course while a kid with an extremely challenging course load struggles to maintain that 2.0. GPAs are entirely arbitrary.

EDIT- didn't see shocktroop's comments until after I had posted this.  Him talky much gooder.

That's called statistical calculation, not arbitrariness. 

I don't think that these kids deserve to be on campus. First and foremost, this is a school. It's not a football factory, or a baseball factory, or a band factory. Those are privileges that are earned by demonstrated effort in the classroom. If kids are simply showing up to disrupt others, they don't deserve to be there, b/c now, they're adversely affecting the kids who do want to be there.

Do you work in a public school?

You can't build the walls tall enough nor thick enough to separate "those" kids from your own children when they are out of school and in the real world. We better d*** well try, try, and try again to get through to them because they will impact your life one way or another. Dragging down the economy, inflicting violence on my loved ones? The more they are exposed to good men and good role models the better off they are, the better off all of us are, the better off my daughter is living in a world where "those" kids still live and breath. As I have told coaches many times, we have to coach the kids we have, not the ideal ones that exist in our heads. "Public" education involves educating the whole public, not just the ones who we decide deserve it. We are not football factories, but the idea that we are college factories is just as ridiculous. Less than a third of Americans have a college degree and we currently have more people with college degrees than we have jobs that require them. Not to mention that traditional college and for that matter traditional high school are on their way out as we now know them. Pushing college on ALL students has probably done more harm than good.

"Kid isn't working hard enough...what should we do? I know, let's have him work even less by taking him out of football, let's remove from him his positive role models and allow him more time to hang out with losers, smoke up, and make babies. Yes! I think we just saved civilization!" Now THAT is even dumber than a 1.0 GPA!

What you want to teach them is entitlement. They didn't work for what they want, but you're still going to give them privileges that should be prioritized for the kids who earn it. What they're learning is, "Hey, I screwed around and didn't work in the classroom, but it's all good, b/c I still got to play football." This is what's being unleashed on society. These kids leave school thinking that everyone will hand them what they want, b/c that's what they've experienced so far.

This isn't about sending them off to college. This is about teaching them values through education. If they're only there to disrupt the process and potentially inhibit others, others trying to work hard, from achieving their goals, they don't deserve the opportunities being afforded to them.

And, I didn't say to bar them from campus. I said that they don't deserve to be there. There's a huge difference. You're right in saying that public education is for everyone. That doesn't mean that those inhibiting the ability of others to learn should be allowed to continue their disruptive behavior at the expense of those actually trying to work. A line has to be drawn somewhere.