|
Post by coachd5085 on May 9, 2014 18:14:19 GMT -6
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. I'll ask again. Where do you teach? I teach at a 90% Free/Reduced lunch Title I school---and I can definitely understand his though process here. I don't know if I agree with all his points, but I understand the frustration in his tone.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on May 9, 2014 19:54:49 GMT -6
I'll ask again. Where do you teach? I teach at a 90% Free/Reduced lunch Title I school---and I can definitely understand his though process here. I don't know if I agree with all his points, but I understand the frustration in his tone. There's s big difference between being a disruptive force and not having a 2.0.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on May 9, 2014 20:23:13 GMT -6
Again, hold them to standards. Make them stay on course to graduate. The goal of high school is to educate and that education is demonstrated by a diploma not a GPA. If you can stay on course for the main purpose of high school education, then you can play sports for that school.
If you are disruptive, then you should get suspended or expelled. You can't play while suspended or expelled.
Plenty of people can have a good life by merely graduating high school, getting a job, keeping a job, working hard, and moving up in that job. I will respect any adult who works hard. I don't give a rat's butt about their high school GPA.
Of course I want my players to have the highest GPA they can. But raising someone's GPA from 1.8 to 2.0 is not going to change their life, if they were going to graduate anyways. That is why really having the minimum GPA set at 3.8 is better. Now when the kid raises from 1.8 to 3.8 he can get a college scholarship. Why did I choose 3.8, I don't know. It sounded good.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 9, 2014 20:23:31 GMT -6
I teach at a 90% Free/Reduced lunch Title I school---and I can definitely understand his though process here. I don't know if I agree with all his points, but I understand the frustration in his tone. There's s big difference between being a disruptive force and not having a 2.0. As I said, I don't necessarily agree with all of his points, but the undercurrent of frustration. Mine stems from first hand knowledge of dealing with a culture that doesn't value education, has no history of success (as most of us would define it) in life, and do not see the need to do things they don't want to do in order to do things that they DO want to do.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on May 9, 2014 20:32:42 GMT -6
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. Entitlement??? Maybe we are talking about two different things here. Are you talking about some stud athlete who doesn't work and everything is handed to him and is disrespectful and disruptive still be allowed to play? If so, maybe I get your frustration. I think the rest of us are talking about the kid with no college future of any kind at all. Has no dad. Has no money. Has very little chances. But just give me an opportunity with him to change his life. To teach him respect, dignity, hard work, grit, selflessness, how to be a parent, how to be a husband, how to be accountable. That will change his life. Not raising his gpa from 1.8 to 2.0 so he can graduate with a higher gpa but with no better opportunities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 20:38:15 GMT -6
Entitlement has become that new buzzword people love to throw into a conversation whether it's relevant or not...
|
|
jmg999
Junior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by jmg999 on May 10, 2014 1:36:43 GMT -6
Except that it's completely relevant here. When we let students play football, when they haven't earned the right to play by doing what's required of them in the classroom, we're telling them that they can enjoy the privileges of life without having to work for them. The lesson learned is that they are entitled to the fruits of their labor w/out the actual labor.
|
|
|
Post by blb on May 10, 2014 6:11:41 GMT -6
A highly organized, disciplined, team activity like Football can be just the thing some kids who don't have structure in their lives or value school-education need to turn them around.
jmg, frankly you come off as if you don't want to be bothered dealing with kids who have had difficult lives-upbringings and want someone to cut them for you so you only have to work with the pre-packaged model citizens of your world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2014 6:16:47 GMT -6
Except that it's completely relevant here. When we let students play football, when they haven't earned the right to play by doing what's required of them in the classroom, we're telling them that they can enjoy the privileges of life without having to work for them. The lesson learned is that they are entitled to the fruits of their labor w/out the actual labor. Unless I'm the one misinterpreting things, I don't think anyone is saying this at all. I think the gist of this discussion is that the punishment should fit the crime. No one is saying football should just be given to kids. However, having a low GPA doesn't seem dire enough to suspend a kid for an entire academic year or calendar year. In fact, it would have the exact opposite effect. Kids with low GPAs probably need all the support and structure they can get and what is being described here removes a large part of that support and structure.
|
|
|
Post by IronmanFootball on May 10, 2014 6:34:00 GMT -6
Maybe the quality of education is higher/more difficult in your state but down here it is pretty bad to be 2.8 or worse. State of FL hands out Bs for blinking.
|
|
|
Post by IronmanFootball on May 10, 2014 6:35:31 GMT -6
I guess you can say that when you teach at a private school. Charter schools are public......
|
|
|
Post by fantom on May 10, 2014 6:56:49 GMT -6
Maybe the quality of education is higher/more difficult in your state but down here it is pretty bad to be 2.8 or worse. State of FL hands out Bs for blinking. Around here there's a big push from Guidance and Admin to get as many kids as they can into upper level courses like AP. I can assure you that AP Calculus teachers to not hand out B's for blinking.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on May 10, 2014 6:57:27 GMT -6
Except that it's completely relevant here. When we let students play football, when they haven't earned the right to play by doing what's required of them in the classroom, we're telling them that they can enjoy the privileges of life without having to work for them. The lesson learned is that they are entitled to the fruits of their labor w/out the actual labor. No one is saying they should play if they haven't done what is required of them in the classroom. We are debating what is the appropriate requirement. That is why a said a 2.0 gpa is arbitrary. Someone else could say you have to have all A's. That person would complain about the kid playing with one B. Someone else could say it has to all A's and B's. So the kid with six A's and 1 C, now can't play despite having a 3.71 gpa. You do realize that a kid with 5 C's, 1 B, and 1 F in pre-calculus is less than 2.0. That is a 1.86 GPA. Or six C's and 1 D in pre-calculus is also a 1.86 GPA. You are using circular reasoning. You decide whatever standard you think is appropriate, and then say everyone who hasn't met that standard didn't earn the right. Whatever standard anyone chooses, you can always go higher. Or whatever standard you choose, I can always go higher and I can decide your guys aren't working hard enough. Even if you choose all A's, I can choose all A's with 100's on everything. If you choose that, I can add in it has to be advanced courses. If you choose that, I can add in plus 10 hours of community service.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on May 10, 2014 7:01:00 GMT -6
Maybe the quality of education is higher/more difficult in your state but down here it is pretty bad to be 2.8 or worse. State of FL hands out Bs for blinking. That is on the school. What does that have to do with being allowed to play football? If the kid can earn the right to graduate, he should earn the right to play sports. By the way, we have another arbitrary number here, 2.8. Is that 2.8 standard for every school in Florida?
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on May 10, 2014 7:03:02 GMT -6
I guess you can say that when you teach at a private school. Charter schools are public...... My apologies. Charter around here usually means private.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on May 10, 2014 7:05:02 GMT -6
Entitlement has become that new buzzword people love to throw into a conversation whether it's relevant or not... Usually thrown around by people who will absolutely throw a hissy fit if you threaten their retirement or health care or personal days or prep periods or... But the kids are "entitled"...
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 10, 2014 7:17:35 GMT -6
Charter schools are public...... My apologies. Charter around here usually means private. I think you are probably wrong on that too coach. Charter means CHARTER... which means schools obtaining a charter to run a public school. Academy may usually indicate private, but not Charter
|
|
|
Post by fantom on May 10, 2014 7:26:24 GMT -6
Entitlement has become that new buzzword people love to throw into a conversation whether it's relevant or not... Usually thrown around by people who will absolutely throw a hissy fit if you threaten their retirement or health care or personal days or prep periods or... But the kids are "entitled"... If this thread deteriorates into the annual teachers vs. non-teachers thread it will be locked.
|
|
|
Post by IronmanFootball on May 10, 2014 7:47:20 GMT -6
Maybe the quality of education is higher/more difficult in your state but down here it is pretty bad to be 2.8 or worse. State of FL hands out Bs for blinking. That is on the school. What does that have to do with being allowed to play football? If the kid can earn the right to graduate, he should earn the right to play sports. By the way, we have another arbitrary number here, 2.8. Is that 2.8 standard for every school in Florida? The right to play sports? It's a privilege and should be addressed that way by ADs, coaches, parents, and players. I'm not allowing discipline or academic issues in my program. A 2.0 GPA is a joke. Period. Especially with the amount of documentation required to give someone the D or F they've earned. Many teachers are just giving C's to avoid the headache.
|
|
|
Post by blb on May 10, 2014 8:33:25 GMT -6
That is on the school. What does that have to do with being allowed to play football? If the kid can earn the right to graduate, he should earn the right to play sports. By the way, we have another arbitrary number here, 2.8. Is that 2.8 standard for every school in Florida? The right to play sports? It's a privilege and should be addressed that way by ADs, coaches, parents, and players. I'm not allowing discipline or academic issues in my program. A 2.0 GPA is a joke. Period. Especially with the amount of documentation required to give someone the D or F they've earned. Many teachers are just giving C's to avoid the headache.
The discussion is what must be done to earn the right or privilege of playing interscholastic sports, specifically academic eligibility. Don't get hung up on the semantics. Key word silky used was "earn."
Your attitude towards "discipline or academic issues" is elitist, just like jmg's.
You do realize some kids can learn discipline and gain a connection to the school by being in your program? Or do you want a team of Boy Scouts who are only going to learn how to block and tackle?
Further, we have had kids who had trouble functioning in some classes but never gave us a lick of trouble in Football activities. Maybe the "issues" were from the teachers' end.
The belief that "anyone can get a 2.0 if they just try" is a specious argument, has never been supported by research.
|
|
|
Post by IronmanFootball on May 10, 2014 8:52:39 GMT -6
Students choose to behave or not. Everyone can behave. They behave for us as coaches because we control PT and conditioning, they care more about PT than grades because they can't see an inch in front of their pecker and don't realize running a 4.5 doesn't mean crap if you can't qualify. If the players respect their coaches and the program they would behave in class, because it directly reflects the program and the coaching staff, and they know that as well as we do.
|
|
souza12
Sophomore Member
Posts: 179
|
Post by souza12 on May 10, 2014 8:58:54 GMT -6
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. That's called statistical calculation, not arbitrariness. The statistics show that 100% of kids with 1.0 GPAs graduate high school if they have all the credits. Credits should be the determining factor on eligibility. Or at least the main thing.
|
|
souza12
Sophomore Member
Posts: 179
|
Post by souza12 on May 10, 2014 9:04:24 GMT -6
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. They do deserve to be there.. its public education.. their parents are more than likely paying taxes that help support the school. The school itself has a responsibility through their discipline policy to set a specific learning environment and teach the disruptive kids how to act. You would hate my district, we are going through a "restorative justice" transformation that may soon turn our classrooms into a free-for-all lol
|
|
|
Post by fantom on May 10, 2014 9:07:13 GMT -6
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. They do deserve to be there.. its public education.. their parents are more than likely paying taxes that help support the school. The school itself has a responsibility through their discipline policy to set a specific learning environment and teach the disruptive kids how to act. You would hate my district, we are going through a "restorative justice" transformation that may soon turn our classrooms into a free-for-all lol Why is everybody assuming that every kid who isn't a great student is disruptive (or, for that matter, that every kid with a 3.5 is a saint)?
|
|
|
Post by gibbs72 on May 10, 2014 9:07:59 GMT -6
"restorative justice" What the h**l is that???
|
|
souza12
Sophomore Member
Posts: 179
|
Post by souza12 on May 10, 2014 9:13:11 GMT -6
Except that it's completely relevant here. When we let students play football, when they haven't earned the right to play by doing what's required of them in the classroom, we're telling them that they can enjoy the privileges of life without having to work for them. The lesson learned is that they are entitled to the fruits of their labor w/out the actual labor. 80% of football is labor. The fruits happen when/if you even win games. For the people who lack structure/discipline, football is the exact thing they need to learn when it means to work from February - August and POSSIBLE enjoy September/October/November. And if they DONT win.. they get to see what it feels like to have {censored} results. Theyll make that connection between football and life. My only plea is that all Freshman in the country get a CLEAN SLATE to give football a try... If it doesnt work and they get on the early path to doing all the wrong things, well its on them.
|
|
|
Post by blb on May 10, 2014 9:13:47 GMT -6
Issue is not 40 times or qualifying for a scholly or even PT. I've never had a kid sign a D-I LOI out of HS. And not every kid starts or even plays a lot. But they all have to be eligible and follow training rules.
Yes, kids can behave or not. But we're talking about adolescents who are in various stages of emotional, social, and psychological maturation. And come from different upbringings.
Many, even the "good" kids, will push the envelope with adults as far as we let them. And unfortunately there are teachers who cannot or will not manage their classrooms, or have difficulty relating to kids from diverse backgrounds.
At one of my head coaching jobs the school had a citizenship grade requirement in addition to academic eligibility. If a player showed up on the list they got PIE after practice.
However, there was one teacher who was notorious for having a large number of athletes on the weekly report for citizenship. She was basically trying to use it as a means to control her classes because she was unable to.
In a perfect example of the Law of Unintended Consequences, the more she did it, the more some kids resented her, and some responded even less to her teaching.
Finally late one season she came up to me and said, "Your linebacker is acting up and getting a 'D' in my class. What are you going to do about it?"
(The kid in question came from a low-income, one parent home. After he left practice he went home to make dinner for his siblings before going to work at local Mickey D's until close. He was a captain in Football and Wrestling, all-conference, and a very positive leader by example for us).
I replied, "Your Math student fumbled on the three-yard line last Friday night. What are YOU going to do about THAT?"
|
|
souza12
Sophomore Member
Posts: 179
|
Post by souza12 on May 10, 2014 9:16:42 GMT -6
They do deserve to be there.. its public education.. their parents are more than likely paying taxes that help support the school. The school itself has a responsibility through their discipline policy to set a specific learning environment and teach the disruptive kids how to act. You would hate my district, we are going through a "restorative justice" transformation that may soon turn our classrooms into a free-for-all lol Why is everybody assuming that every kid who isn't a great student is disruptive (or, for that matter, that every kid with a 3.5 is a saint)? Either I read your post wrong (which I am incredibly sorry for) or you're making up concepts from my post (which I absolutely hate). I do feel that its the school's responsibility to have a discipline policy in place for such situations. It should be applied to everyone. Dont think I put anywhere that only the "bad students" have "discipline problems." If I read your post wrong, then pin a tail on me cuz im a jackass.
|
|
souza12
Sophomore Member
Posts: 179
|
Post by souza12 on May 10, 2014 9:20:34 GMT -6
"restorative justice" What the h**l is that??? I dont think too many people know about it. Just the districts way of keeping kids in school. Things like fighting, graffiti, theft, and other "punitive" offenses are dealt with the "victim" involved to find a common resolution rather than suspension. Going to be interested to see how this all works out with the whole "no snitchin" and "snitches get stitches" environment we have in this area.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on May 10, 2014 9:32:34 GMT -6
Why is everybody assuming that every kid who isn't a great student is disruptive (or, for that matter, that every kid with a 3.5 is a saint)? Either I read your post wrong (which I am incredibly sorry for) or you're making up concepts from my post (which I absolutely hate). I do feel that its the school's responsibility to have a discipline policy in place for such situations. It should be applied to everyone. Dont think I put anywhere that only the "bad students" have "discipline problems." If I read your post wrong, then pin a tail on me cuz im a jackass. It's a long thread. There were a couple of times when somebody has linked "Weak student" with "disruptive behavior". They're not necessarily synonymous. Your message just happened to be the last one that seemed to do that.
|
|