From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Football Failures at Bowie Force end of Season
Date: 7 Nov 92 12:42:16 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Nov06.234107.27197@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:

>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>: >And exactly how does this "trash" the schools?
>: 
>: Watered down standards (so they can graduate),

>The solution to this is to raise the standards and not graduate them.

Correct, but most schools can't or won't do that to a football star
(apparently thinking the way you are).  So the first step is to not
let them do EXTRA-CURRICULAR things.

>: disruptive behaviour
>: (because they aren't interested in being there,

>The solution to this is to kick them out of class if they're being disruptive.

Again correct, but again this is much less likely to happen if the
individual involved is a football star.

>: slowed down classes so that everyone learns less

>The solution to this is to have different levels of classes for the slow
>learners and the fast learners.

Correct AGAIN (see, you can do it if you put your mind to it and stop
knee-jerk disagreeing with things just because *I* happen to be the
one to post them).  However, what kind of classes do you put in place
for NO learners so that they can continue to play football?

>:                                                       It USED to be
>: that a high school diploma meant SOMETHING -- an employer could assume
>: that someone who got through high school had a certain set of basic
>: skills.  You can't do that anymore.

>NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH FOOTBALL.

Sure it does.  That's why they came up with No Pass - No Play in the
first place.  They looked at the numbers and noted that as a group,
football players had a predominant percentage of the folks who just
weren't making it academically.  Why did you think they decided this
was a good idea in the first place?

>This may come as a big shock to you, but there are students who don't play
>school sports but who still are disruptive or slow learners.  Just like there
>are students who play sports who aren't disruptive or slow learners.

I'm not sure why you think this comes as a shock to me.  The problem
often is that 'athletes' are CAPABLE of much better work, but just
won't bother because sports is more important to them.  Well, the
purpose of school isn't to provide sports leagues.  If you are told
you can't do something you want unless you do something else, this is
called MOTIVATION.

>As usual, instead of addressing the problems directly, people go for the 
>easiest target that they can scapegoat, regardless of whether it makes any
>sense or not, and then they pat themselves on the back because they did
>SOMETHING.

Oh, hogwash, John.  Every journey starts with a single step, and you
can't clean up a mess without picking up that first piece of trash.
Allowing (and paying for) participation in EXTRA-CURRICULAR activities
by those who are failing the CURRICULAR activities is like rewarding
someone for failing.  Where's all that libertarian motivation in the
free market and such they you like so much in your reasoning on this
one? 

Fine, I'll make a counter proprosition for you.  Simply eliminate all
extra-curricular activities for everyone.  If they want them, they can
do them on their own time, their own money, and find their own
facilities.  You like that 'solution' better?  I don't, but it would
seem to fit with your reasoning here much better.  After all, it's not
part of the curriculum.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics