The Observation Deck

Dear All,

To memorialize our current and past-practice, as well as clarify the same for students and parents, the Lakewood City School District Board of Education adopted the following policy at last night's regular meeting:

5870 – STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN INTERSCHOLASTIC SPORTS

The Board recognizes that student participation in extracurricular activities to include interscholastic sports is a privilege and not a right. The Board further recognizes that the competitive nature of interscholastic sports requires setting high expectations for students to engage in activities that will make each student the best athlete he or she can be. And the Board further recognizes that while participation in interscholastic sports constitutes a learning experience which contributes to the educational program, the most appropriate manner for student development as athletes will be different for different students.

Accordingly, the Board makes it clear that:

1. No coach or advisor shall require off-season activities programs or requirements, which interfere with or limit the ability of any student from participating in any interscholastic sport in a different sports season.

2. In sports where students are cut, the students who are best able to play the sport shall be retained. The participation or non-participation of a student in any off-season program, activity or requirement shall not be a factor in the decision to cut a student from the team in any way, shape or form.

3. The decision for a student to participate in more than one interscholastic sport in different seasons rests entirely with the student and parent insofar as the decision complies with the rules and regulations of the Ohio High School Athletic Association and the academic eligibility and other policies and regulations of the Lakewood City Board of Education and the Lakewood City School District.

Matt

The Board was obviously not thinking about team sports and a coach’s need to establish team spirit, team culture, and team success vis a vis the success of an individual athlete.

The Lakewood Board wrote:Accordingly, the Board makes it clear that:

Clear?

The Lakewood Board wrote:2. In sports where students are cut, the students who are best able to play the sport shall be retained.

Is that clear?

The Lakewood Board wrote:…best able to play the sport...

How do we judge “best able”?

This resolution potentially takes away from a coach’s ability to make a richer team experience for an entire group of student athletes. It imposes an arbitrary, but still UNCLEAR criteria on the coach and players.

The Board has now said that the individual with character, dedication, and good team interaction, should be cut in favor of another because of only slightly better physical skills, or whatever “best able to play the sport” means.



Steve

.

Matt--
I think you may want to provide some background on this issue. Unless I'm mistaken, these measures are intended to encourage students to participate in multiple sports, rather than being locked into one sport year-round by a particular coach.

Without context it's a bit odd to read something like "In sports where students are cut, the students who are best able to play the sport shall be retained."
To most of us that sounds like basic common sense, although Stephen is correct to point out that there is often subjectivity as to who is "best able to play".

Michael Deneen wrote:Matt--
I think you may want to provide some background on this issue. Unless I'm mistaken, these measures are intended to encourage students to participate in multiple sports, rather than being locked into one sport year-round by a particular coach.

Without context it's a bit odd to read something like "In sports where students are cut, the students who are best able to play the sport shall be retained."
To most of us that sounds like basic common sense, although Stephen is correct to point out that there is often subjectivity as to who is "best able to play".

Mike,

As always, you are correct, background would help and you summed it up well - i.e., "these measures are intended to encourage students to participate in multiple sports, rather than being locked into one sport year-round by a particular coach."

When I asked the Administration, at the regular board meeting and in open session, whether the policy and "best able to play" language is current and past-practice, the answer was, unequivocally, "yes." And, the policy was developed for the reasons you summed up, Mike.

As to the "subjectivity" in the policy, that is to address the concerns of Mr. Davis. There has always been and always will be subjectivity in coaching. This policy is not a city charter. Coaches will be able to coach as they always have been doing because, again, "these measures are intended to encourage students to participate in multiple sports, rather than being locked into one sport year-round by a particular coach."

Matt

Matt,

Thanks for the phone call. It was an hour of robust conversation well spent.

Although not a major concern of mine, I have paid some attention to these sports debates.

If "these measures are intended to encourage students to participate in multiple sports, rather than being locked into one sport year-round by a particular coach", then I am in agreement.

Matthew John Markling wrote:This policy is not a city charter.

I know.

As you are aware, I have been involved with Lakewood City Charter issues more than but a very few people. I am not a lawyer, but from a citizen's perspective I am always looking for clarity and specificity in the Charter and other public documents. The language and intent should be clear for elected and non-elected officials, public employees, and the public at large.

The Lakewood Board wrote:2. In sports where students are cut, the students who are best able to play the sport shall be retained.

Again, to my mind, this imposes an arbitrary, but still unclear criteria on coaches, players, parents, the administration, and the Board. How will it be interpreted? How will it be enforced?

That sentence also seems in conflict with this language in the policy preamble (below).

The Lakewood Board wrote:The Board recognizes that student participation in extracurricular activities to include interscholastic sports is a privilege and not a right.

I would suggest that the Board remove or modify the first sentence in the numbered item 2. That’s all.


Steve


.

Steve,

A telephone conversation of 1 hour, 18 minutes, and 37 seconds with you is always well spent. But, who’s counting?

This is a policy that was brought to the Board by the Administration to memorialize past and current-practice.

I shared your concerns with the Administration today. And, I both appreciate and understand your points.

If confusion exists in the future, this is certainly something that can be addressed by both the Administration and Board in a timely manner - unlike a city charter, for example.

Matt

I'm not a big fan of professional athletics, so I have a bias here, but that doesn't mean that I don't understand the pressures on athletes who have the talent to play in college or go pro.

Often these students are talented in multiple sports; a good football player would probably also be a good wrestler. And there is pressure, not necessarily from the coach, to spend a lot of time out of season sharpening your skills. These pressures can come from parents, scouts, even teammates, and if the athlete plays another sport rather than participating in the unofficial training regimes, his dedication to the sport comes into question and he can be viewed as not a team player, which could very well be a factor in choosing who plays and who doesn't. If you had two quarterbacks, one a team player and the other a part timer (in the eyes of his teammates) it would not be unforeseeable that the receivers would perhaps drop a few passes or miss a few routes, just to make the annointed team player seem better. It would take an exceptional coach to see through such a scheme, so more likely the coach would say there was some intangible preventing the part timer from being number one.

If you look at the life of someone who becomes an olympic champion or a professional, you will probably find that they have missed a lot of life because they were busy training around the year. So while I applaud this policy to encourage athletes to participate in muliple sports, I think we will lose some athletes who will go elsewhere for the year round training it takes to achieve top tier status. But then I think athletics should be more a recreational activity than an entertainment industry.

Matt, To Mr. Davis's point...It depends on what the meaning of is is ...

If we were talking about a recreation league, then yes..everyone should get a chance.

Since we are talking about highschool sports...only the best should be able to play.

This is just a preperation for what the real world after highschool/college is like...if you are great at what you do, you have a better chance of being a better performed at work....if you are weak and people can see that, you will be lower on the food chain.

I was a mid-tier varsity soccer play all through highschool 1999-2003. Sometimes you play and sometimes you dont...would I rather be on a team that can score 4 goals a game by there good players, or would I rather be on a "fair" team which might score 0-1 goals a game?