Proposal 2 impact to our state and our children

[Bluegrasscard]

Without a doubt Proposal 2 will reduce participation in MS and HS atheletics as an extracurricular activity across this state. Thousands of students will banned from participation each year. But what will that mean? How will students be impacted? These questions have not and still are not answered. It appears no one wants to ask or answer that question.

 

But a report by the Fayette County school system just published February 26, 2007 paints a very clear picture of the impact of reduced participation in extracurricular activities.

 

http://www.fcps.net/pss/etf/Final_Report.pdf

 

From the report:

 

"Overall, there appears to be a significant achievement gap in both reading and math at both the middle school and high school level between participates and non-participants. Overall, in middle schools, 38.9% of partipants scored Proficient or Distinguished in Math vs. 17.4 of non-participants. In Reading, 74.9% of participants scored Proficient or Distinguished vs. 51.6% of non-participants. Overall, in high schools, 60.5% of participants scored Proficient or Distinguished in Math vs. 35.1% of non-participants. In Reading 74.9% of participates scored Proficient or Distinguished vs. 47% of non-participants. These patterns hold for virtually every school in the district, with significant 'gaps' even at our highest performing schools."

 

Futher in the report:

 

"Clearly, there is an association between participation in extra- or co-curricular activities and academic achievement."

 

The final paragraph of the report:

 

"In the final analysis, children need a way to feel connected to their school. Extracurricular activities are one important way we can help make this happen."

 

Note that the italicized and bolded sections are in the report and are not my emphasis.

 

Proposal 2 actions are 180 degrees opposite of what Fayette County's own report says is needed. Proposal 2 flys in the face of this well done report.

 

I hope that the KY BOE sees this and reconsiders this reckless and dangerous proposal at its June 13-14 meeting.

[ladiesbballcoach]

That participation is usually a result of having a parent who WANTS their child to be participating. They have taken their children to leagues outside of the schools' team. They spend time with their child shooting baskets, playing catch with either a football or baseball, etc, etc.

 

They also have spent time with their child reading to and with them. Making sure they have done homework and that their studies are important.

 

That is the connection. THE PARENTS.

 

There are many schools that don't have a MS baseball team, so are baseball players not doing well? Fast pitch is not played at all MS's, so are they not doing well. Not sure how many MS soccer teams are out there, so are they not doing well.

 

I bet they are. They are playing on NON-school teams in these sports and I bet their grades are good. Why?

 

PARENTS who care and are spending time with their child who happens to also be an athlete.

 

You want to improve education and athletics, improve the parents who DON'T spend the time, energy and $$$$$$$$$ investing in their kids.

 

This board is full with parents who HAVE DONE THAT and see the results of it. Ask them!

[Bluegrasscard]

That participation is usually a result of having a parent who WANTS their child to be participating. They have taken their children to leagues outside of the schools' team. They spend time with their child shooting baskets, playing catch with either a football or baseball, etc, etc.

 

They also have spent time with their child reading to and with them. Making sure they have done homework and that their studies are important.

 

That is the connection. THE PARENTS.

 

There are many schools that don't have a MS baseball team, so are baseball players not doing well? Fast pitch is not played at all MS's, so are they not doing well. Not sure how many MS soccer teams are out there, so are they not doing well.

 

I bet they are. They are playing on NON-school teams in these sports and I bet their grades are good. Why?

 

PARENTS who care and are spending time with their child who happens to also be an athlete.

 

You want to improve education and athletics, improve the parents who DON'T spend the time, energy and $$$$$$$$$ investing in their kids.

 

This board is full with parents who HAVE DONE THAT and see the results of it. Ask them!

 

I do not disagree with any of the points.

 

However, what about the child who wants to try a sport for the first time as a freshman or wants to get to know other children at his or her new school by joining a KHSAA sanctioned sport. Proposal 2 will prevent that for hundreds or thousands of kids across Kentucky.

 

The report is objective and directly assesses school related extra-circular activities to school achievement.

 

The very last line of the report is 1000% dead on:

 

"In the final analysis, children need a way to feel connected to their school. Extracurricular activities are one important way we can help make this happen."

 

With that mandate in this report how can Proposal 2 be the answer?

[Bluegrasscard]

A national report similar to Fayette County's. With very similar findings.

 

http://www.nfhs.org/web/2004/01/the_case_for_high_school_activities.aspx

 

The case for increased participation is overwhelming.

 

Yet, in Kentucky, where education (supposedly) comes first Proposal 2 will reduce participation.

[Bluegrasscard]

March 1995 Study

 

"Promoting Achievement in School through Sport: Three-Year Impact Study and Summary Report Covering Data from 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 School Years."

 

Lead in:

 

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED382587&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED382587

 

Actual study:

 

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/26/6b/43.pdf

 

A great report with another great closing statement:

 

"The Three-Year Impact Study and Summary Report confirms that PASS enables high school students to improve their academic performances as measured by overall GPA. Further, the report supports the view held by the American Sports Insitute that in order to improve the academic performances of physically-oriented students, there needs to an increased, not a decreased, emphasis on the appropriate study and practice of sport."

 

 

How does Proposal 2 help this situation?

[STRIKE3]

This is all about, two things. (1) Limiting activities, in youth sponsored programs and giving more control, to the KHSAA coaches, on what a player can and can't participate in. I see many suits arising, when this is enforced.

 

(2) Schools want educational numbers to rise, take away video games and cell phones at home, watch the numbers increase.

 

Finally, let mom and dad, raise their children and decide what extracurricular activities are best...They've not done a bad job, after all.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Strike3, I really and honestly believe that you need to add that some parents have not done a bad job, cause I can name you a boatload who have done a horrible job and seen their kids taken from them because of the poor job they have done.

 

If just participating is the key and what a young player is looking for, just to be part of the team, they can still do that. From my understanding there is NOTHING in this proposal to prevent a player from being ON THE TEAM. They just cannot play in games as a freshmen. Am I wrong in my reading on this?

 

I know at one time they were talking about not being able to practice and that was horribly wrong. But my understanding that the player can be on the team, can participate, can practice, all those things that the posts are indicating the studies say need to be done. Can still be done even with Prop 2 in place.

[All Tell]

Strike3, I really and honestly believe that you need to add that some parents have not done a bad job, cause I can name you a boatload who have done a horrible job and seen their kids taken from them because of the poor job they have done.

 

If just participating is the key and what a young player is looking for, just to be part of the team, they can still do that. From my understanding there is NOTHING in this proposal to prevent a player from being ON THE TEAM. They just cannot play in games as a freshmen. Am I wrong in my reading on this?

 

I know at one time they were talking about not being able to practice and that was horribly wrong. But my understanding that the player can be on the team, can participate, can practice, all those things that the posts are indicating the studies say need to be done. Can still be done even with Prop 2 in place.

And you don't think that's a big deal?

 

If it's not a big deal then lets just make all freshmen across the board inelligible to play in games, after all they can still BE ON THE TEAM.:lol:

[ladiesbballcoach]

And you don't think that's a big deal?

 

If it's not a big deal then lets just make all freshmen across the board inelligible to play in games, after all they can still BE ON THE TEAM.:lol:

 

Was pointing out that over and over the point was being made that this proposal was denying the students participation with the team. One poster even said a kid who had never played before wouldn't be able to be on the team.

 

Was pointing out that was not accurate.

 

If they are going to do something, then not being eligible for freshmen games is better than the one proposal that denied them from being on the team.

 

Honestly, with all of the AAU/club/offseason/team camps/leagues, I am not sure how devastating that will actually be. Most HS players (and I am talking only basketball here) play about 4-5 times more games in the NON-basketball season than they do IN season. During my time as varsity coach, we played 60-75 games (that would be combined frosh/jv/varsity) during the SUMMER. Losing that time would be more devastating than the 15some freshmen games that we played.

 

I actually think this proposal will INCREASE the likelihood that athletes will GO MORE OFTEN to private schools than the other.

 

Those private school supporters have consistently indicated on here that parents send their kids to a private middle school and then transfer to the public high school much more often than the other way around. Face with the prospect of their child being denied the opportunity to play games as a freshmen, they will just stay with the private HS than to enroll their child in the community public high school.

 

The hystery of a mass number of freshmen being ruled ineligible for games, I don't think will happen. But rather will see increased enrollment as they stay on the private side.

[Bluegrasscard]

And you don't think that's a big deal?

 

If it's not a big deal then lets just make all freshmen across the board inelligible to play in games, after all they can still BE ON THE TEAM.:lol:

 

All Tell - do you mean varsity games?

 

If so, even I would be more favorable to that concept instead of being banned from all sports at all levels.

 

It is very troubling, as a parent and volunteer director for youth sports, to see a rule that prohibits a player from playing all sports at all levels for one year as a freshmen.

 

As the report from Fayette County indicates, students need to feel connected. Connected means they are a full fledged member of the team. The reality is that if they can not don the colors of their new school and take the field or court or ice then they are not really connected.

 

In hockey you protect your 'colors' (i.e. your jersey) on the ice and off. So it hung up before and after games, not just put in the bag. It is your 'colors' that make you a part of the team and make you connected. Even if players are allowed to practice (and this will likely not be viable based on insurance requirements) they will not be have a jersey and be on the bench during games. They will NOT be connected.

 

If however, they can still play in Freshman games and in JV games and wear the colors they will be connected. I would be much less negative on this proposal if the ban was only to VARSITY level games

 

BTW, the insurance issue is very real. Insurance is provided only to those meeting '...all eligibility requirements...'. Bylaw 4 wording is explicient that students under the new Proprosal 2 wording are under a 'period of ineligiblity'.

 

Thus, insurance is not in force for Prop 2 student. Since the insurance is not in force the potential for a student to be injured or killed during 'practice' will create a massive financial liability to the school disctricts and school districts will have to ban Prop 2 students from practicing.

 

So it is unlikely that Prop 2 students will be allowed to practice. Insurance coverage in youth sports in the trump card. Due to the possibility of serious injury and even death you must have insurance on everyone and KHSAA rules say if you do not meet all eligibility requirements you have no insurance.

 

The KBE tried to help last meeting and they should be commended for that. But in the end it will not help.

[All Tell]

All Tell - do you mean varsity games?

 

If so, even I would be more favorable to that concept instead of being banned from all sports at all levels.

 

It is very troubling, as a parent and volunteer director for youth sports, to see a rule that prohibits a player from playing all sports at all levels for one year as a freshmen.

 

As the report from Fayette County indicates, students need to feel connected. Connected means they are a full fledged member of the team. The reality is that if they can not don the colors of their new school and take the field or court or ice then they are not really connected.

 

In hockey you protect your 'colors' (i.e. your jersey) on the ice and off. So it hung up before and after games, not just put in the bag. It is your 'colors' that make you a part of the team and make you connected. Even if players are allowed to practice (and this will likely not be viable based on insurance requirements) they will not be have a jersey and be on the bench during games. They will NOT be connected.

 

If however, they can still play in Freshman games and in JV games and wear the colors they will be connected. I would be much less negative on this proposal if the ban was only to VARSITY level games

 

BTW, the insurance issue is very real. Insurance is provided only to those meeting '...all eligibility requirements...'. Bylaw 4 wording is explicient that students under the new Proprosal 2 wording are under a 'period of ineligiblity'.

 

Thus, insurance is not in force for Prop 2 student. Since the insurance is not in force the potential for a student to be injured or killed during 'practice' will create a massive financial liability to the school disctricts and school districts will have to ban Prop 2 students from practicing.

 

So it is unlikely that Prop 2 students will be allowed to practice. Insurance coverage in youth sports in the trump card. Due to the possibility of serious injury and even death you must have insurance on everyone and KHSAA rules say if you do not meet all eligibility requirements you have no insurance.

 

The KBE tried to help last meeting and they should be commended for that. But in the end it will not help.

I was being sarcastic. I don't favor any change in the current eligibilty fo freshmen at any level.

[All Tell]

Was pointing out that over and over the point was being made that this proposal was denying the students participation with the team. One poster even said a kid who had never played before wouldn't be able to be on the team.

 

Was pointing out that was not accurate.

 

If they are going to do something, then not being eligible for freshmen games is better than the one proposal that denied them from being on the team.

 

Honestly, with all of the AAU/club/offseason/team camps/leagues, I am not sure how devastating that will actually be. Most HS players (and I am talking only basketball here) play about 4-5 times more games in the NON-basketball season than they do IN season. During my time as varsity coach, we played 60-75 games (that would be combined frosh/jv/varsity) during the SUMMER. Losing that time would be more devastating than the 15some freshmen games that we played.

 

I actually think this proposal will INCREASE the likelihood that athletes will GO MORE OFTEN to private schools than the other.

 

Those private school supporters have consistently indicated on here that parents send their kids to a private middle school and then transfer to the public high school much more often than the other way around. Face with the prospect of their child being denied the opportunity to play games as a freshmen, they will just stay with the private HS than to enroll their child in the community public high school.

 

The hystery of a mass number of freshmen being ruled ineligible for games, I don't think will happen. But rather will see increased enrollment as they stay on the private side.

You can spin it any way you want but it will deny participation with the team because the freshman will not be able to play in games and that limits what they can do. In sports that cut players (yes I'm talking basketball here) how many coaches are going to keep a kid on their roster knowing that he/she will not be able to play? I would venture to guess not many, and even if they do how many are going to spend any time teaching them as opposed to those who will be playing in games. And speaking for football only, the high school season is the only chance kids get to play unlike basketball, soccer, volleyball etc. that seem to demand kids play year round.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Bluegrasscard, I disagree with you to an extent.

 

Managers feel very much a part of the team if the coach handles it correctly and they don't play a second.

 

There are players who will go through the district, regional and state tournament and not see a second of action. Do they not feel part of the team from their school that went to the state?

 

Absolutely, playing time in games enhances it. No doubt.

 

But it does not determine whether you feel connected with the team or not.

[Theoldguy]

Bluegrasscard, I disagree with you to an extent.

 

Managers feel very much a part of the team if the coach handles it correctly and they don't play a second.

 

There are players who will go through the district, regional and state tournament and not see a second of action. Do they not feel part of the team from their school that went to the state?

 

Absolutely, playing time in games enhances it. No doubt.

 

But it does not determine whether you feel connected with the team or not.

 

Just a question as I really don't know, but if you can't be on the team as a player, then how can you be on the team as a manager? Again how can you be one, if you can't be the other.....Being barred from the team to me means being barred from the team.....

[All Tell]

Bluegrasscard, I disagree with you to an extent.

 

Managers feel very much a part of the team if the coach handles it correctly and they don't play a second.

 

There are players who will go through the district, regional and state tournament and not see a second of action. Do they not feel part of the team from their school that went to the state?

 

Absolutely, playing time in games enhances it. No doubt.

 

But it does not determine whether you feel connected with the team or not.

I went through college as a manager (on a full scholarship I might add) so I know of where I speak. This was after being a team manager for 4 years in high school.

 

Comparing a manager to a player who knows going in that he/she is never going to play a second is maybe the ultimate apples/oranges comparison.

 

A manager knows at the outset that his/her role on the team will be a non-playing roll. I am quite aware of the time that a manager put in but it is no where comprabale to the physical toll a player makes on the practice field. Every athlete that is worth a salt wants to be on the field and/or court come game time and if they can't they at least want to know that they can compete for a spot on the field.

 

Again I say to you that if you don't see it as a big issue then lets make ALL freshmen ineligible for game action.