Possible 5th year athletics in DCPS
This is good to have, but I wonder how many of the DC coaches will try to abuse this and will the powers to be truly enforce this new rule. Let me know your feedback.
| Reply To | 0 |
0 |
RIDICULOUS!!!! If they spent as much time thinking about the school system in DC as they do about this they wouldn't be sitting with a third grade reading level in all public high schools and a huge drop out rate.
This will be abused ... hell, most of the DC leadership goes to jail for one thing or another...how can we trust this will work out.
| Reply To | 0 |
0 |
I dont agree with this either but you all should be careful how you dog the DCIAA and DCPS for doing this. It happens in the MIAA without a hardship (you have 5 years to play 4), it happens in WCAC (and you will see very soon), and some independents do it. Under the new DCSAA the 8 sememster rule will be in place so some of those teams may not be able to participate in the city playoffs and championship games
If you do this, I believe that the student athlete should meet certain requirements toward graduation and it should only be the case if the hardship occured during the last four sememsters (which could really affect a student athlete's recruiting).
| Reply To | 0 |
0 |
Im just throwing out scenerios that should be considered so that kids that are not doing well academically would not be "rewarded" with an extra year. If a student had a TRUE hardship such as previously documented homelessness, injury or illness which caused the student to miss not only the sports season but significant school time during the last two years of high school to even be considered (not granted).
I dont think the ruling should stand, that is what prep school or juco is for.
| Reply To | 0 |
0 |
Im pretty sure Im going to catch hell for this but I don’t care. This proposal is a horrible joke. The caveat that made me choke was the one allowing an extra year of eligibility for teenage pregnancy. The DCIAA is basically ok’ing sex amongst teenagers. Not just ok’ing actually, but rewarding it as they are extending exceptions to someone who had a kid that someone who tore an ACL would not get. I know kids are having sex, I’m accepting of that fact I guess, but I don’t think special exceptions should be made as a result of their lack of foresight. I didn’t see anywhere on the DCIAA “exceptions list” that kids who drive DWI and nearly kill themselves doing so get another year of eligibility, so Im at a loss as to why pregnancy would warrant it.
Someone who tears an ACL (an ACL tear is a typical sports injury as defined by the DCIAA btw) in HS deserves an extra year of eligibility provided it happened on the athletic field far more than someone who gets preggers. But, under the DCIAA proposal a female who tears her ACL and misses a season had better go out and get pregnant quick if she wishes to get that season back as a pregnant girl in DC will get another year of eligibility far quicker than one who had an ACL tear. Someone who lacked the foresight to use birth control, or who lacked the intelligence to tell her significant other to throw on a condom does not deserve the same treatment as someone who busted their butt on the field and got injured.
I understand that Title XI covers pregnancy, but that applies to college students who were deemed deserving both academically and athletically of attending a division one institution. In the DCPS approx. 10% of kids move on to college, so they should not be treated the same way. 1. They are younger and 2. The vast majority are, for whatever reason, not deemed ready for college, so the Title XI argument should not apply to them. They should be treated as kids, and, as such, should not be rewarded for miscues.
If the DCIAA/DCPS were really looking to do right by the new moms who didn’t think ahead, they would forbid them from participating in extra-curricular activities at all. Instead, they should expand the already existing day care system that is in DCPS schools and mandate that these HS students with kids attend parenting courses after school rather than play a sport. At least then these new parents would at least have a foundation for raising their kids.
But, everything I posted above is beyond the point as the DCIAA shouldn’t be granting a fifth year of eligibility. If a kid cant graduate in 4 years, it indicates that, due to any number of reasons, he or she needs more time in a classroom. So rather than offer up more time on the court or field, allow that kid more time in a classroom with specialized tutors to get them back up to speed.
| Reply To | 0 |
0 |
I don't know if I want to get into the teen pregnancy thing, but I will say that high school is supposed to be four years.
Kids are banking on five years of playing sports, which doesn't make any sense. If you can't graduate in four, you shouldn't be able to play five years of sports.
Rewarding failure has too many consequences.
| Reply To | 0 |
0 |
The 5th rule...is mirrored after the NCAA hardship wavier rule. You aren't rewarding students for not succeeding you are just not punishing them for things beyond their control. Clearly none of you would understand a student that would find themselves in this position yet you are will to throw them away. This has nothing to do with their academic either...They would still have to meet those standards as well.
| Reply To | 0 |
0 |
CoachBennett:
I know Dicooper sidestepped it, but Ive got to bring it up again. You stated, "You aren't rewarding students for not succeeding you are just not punishing them for things beyond their control." How is getting pregnant something beyond someone's control? Last I checked condoms are easily affordable. Pregnancy should immediately be taken off the list of hardship. Or, if it isnt, you may as well grant a fifth year of eligibility to the one who got the female athlete pregnant. It is almost as absurd. Others that ought to be reconsidered:
Mental illness. Not to sound heartless, but if a kid has such a massive mental illness that they are forced to miss an entire season, I would be a bit nervous having them on the field/court in stressful situations that might lead to a potential break down.
Death in the family. Over the course of my lifetime, I have probably played with about 15 peers who had loved ones die during the course of an athletic season. I also coached another 12 who suffered the same loss. All took time away from the team. All returned. All found that rejoining the team to be a healthy means of dealing with loss. Teams support their own. By advocating for an individual to leave their supportive peers for a season with the promise of an extra one seems odd. I am confused as to why DCIAA would think this
It is becoming more and more obvious the only mistake Michelle Rhee made during her tenture as Dir of DCPS was hiring Kaya Henderson. This proposal is absurd and should never have been approved.
| Reply To | 0 |
0 |
A female that gets pregant can't participate...as the rule states it is a case by case matter...say a female athlete who all-met as a 10th grader is gets raped and misses her 11th grade season and is forced to miss some of the 1st semester of her sr. year but has family that is supportive and she restarts school having missed some time and is behind. her parents want her to continue school and graduate. She comes back in Jan of that year and plays great again making all-met...should she then not be allowed to play the next year when she is being recruited and her grades are outstanding. What should she do...go to Prep School...leave her family and child...pay for school, ect. Take an objective look at the rule and see how it can be used for kids that need it and not the ones that are trying to get over and beat the system. I think the new AD for the DCIAA...will be able to see the difference and make the correct call on this situation.
You wont be able to just flunk a class and think you will be ok to get another year.
Why shouldn't it match what the NCAA is doing...
| Reply To | 0 |
0 |
Coach: Thanks much for the post, and, by the way, you should be doing the talking for the DCIAA in many cases. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. And it appears that you may have one eye. In the horrible cases of rape, absoultely agree, a kid should get another chance. But, if one reads the media reports submitted by Kaya's handlers, rape isnt once mentioned. You invented that one, but it was a great thing to invent. In said case, a high school student shoudlnt be deprived of a year of extra-curriculars.
That being said, Id like to address something else you brought up. Your posts indicated that I and others who posted were "fans" which I am certainly not. I have coached DC athletes for well over a decade. Full disclosure, in a previous life my job was to work with DC students aged 6-13 with the ultimate goal of helping them find private school placement. And, said placement had nothing to do with their athletic ability. All of my work was intended to keep them out of DCPS high schools as they are a laughable joke. I worked with the DCPS admins to achieve this end and they supported our goals. And, former ADs did so because they openly admitted that their coaches across the board were ill-equipped to handle the nurturing component that came with coaching a typical DC athlete. And, the stats support that fact. Juxtapose the success rates of DCIAA athletes with those who got placed into private high schools (and the better PCS's such as SWW) who succeed both socially and academically. The numbers are shocking. Those DC kids who ended up in private and good public charter schools (again, such as KIPP, SWW, Banneker,etc..) were put in situations in which they were given coaches who actually knew how to work with kids, and the results were astounding.The long and short is, the kids in the program for which I worked, upon entering HS, didnt get preggers. And they ended up, at about a 95% clip going to 4 year colleges, not getting locked up..... So, perhaps rather than offer an extra year of eligibility, maybe hire qualified coaches within the DCIAA. Im not advocating "throwing kids away" but maybe give these kids positive role models as coaches rather than those who get canned mid-season (hello Dunbar) and the results might be different. It'll save a ton of money over the alternative of allowing a 5th year of athletics.
And, while I appreciate your post, I find it confusing that you consistently use the term "you fans" and claim to know what is best for kids in DC. Again, I am not a fan of DC sports. But I do know what is best for DC kids when compared with you. I clearly knew as much, if not more about the ins and outs of this provision, and the programs that I supported previously clearly demonstrated far more succesful social results for DC students than anything else that has been done in the past in the District. Long and short, the program for which I worked produced results. No one affiliated with the DCIAA has. Further, if you think that having kids in the hands of current DC coaches is in the best interest of the athletes, you are a bit loopy. DC coaches are not required to have masters in ed psych or social work, any background in child psych, any sort of certification by organizations such as the Positive Coaching Alliance or Up to Us, nor an undergrad of any sort. DC parents are basically handing their kids over to uknown quantities, which i find to be terrifying. I echo their concerns thinking, why would we want troubled teams spending more time around underqualified individuals?
So, please know this, I care as much as you about giving these kids a chance and keeping them out of trouble. Odds are, as I worked my ass off to get them out of the dumpster fire that is DCPS, I care far more than most. But giving them a fifth year to be around unqualified coaches is the wrong route.
| Reply To | 0 |
0 |
Agreements and Disagreements...
Agreements...Qualified coaches...that should be a must. Having coaches that go through certification programs and other aspects would be a plus for any school, not just DCPS. To tell me that every coach in every school that you sent kids to had all those certifications simple not true. College coaches don't have all those certifications yet they have to do those jobs. Dealing with kids and DC kids is a special job. Not just anyone can do it. You can't tellme that you can take any kid from DC and place them in certain environments and they will be ok...I know that from personal experience. I'm not one that advocates for private, charter or public over the other however I do think I kid should be where they have the best chance to be successful over all and that's just not in the classroom. All in all, every kid can't go to your charter/private schools and for those that attend DCPS let them do what they have to too get the best for their kids. If this rule helps one kid get into college and become a successful person then what does it hurt.
| Reply To | 0 |
0 |
"Coach":
Very confused by your post, or at least by what I assume was your inability to fully absorb mine. I never once claimed that coaches at privates had every one of the certifications i mentioned, yet you seemed to imply I did. To clarify, I merely claimed that they had at least one, which is true, most have several. And, in many cases, DCIAA coaches do not have one of them. DCIAA coaches are not required to have a 4 year undergrad degree from an acredited college. They essentially can be people simply picked up off the street, and more often than not, that is the case. The recent goings-on with Dunbar football point to that. Never seem to hear about cheating in the WCAC. And, every WCAC coach has a 4 year degree, as does every ISL and IAC coach. Also, to the best of my knowledge, every ISL and IAC lacrosse coach is US Lacrosse certified, meaning they have gotten training from the Positive Coaching Alliance. That seems to follow suit with the rest of the private school coaches. There is not a single DCIAA coach who is PCA certified or certified with similar orgs.
Further, you seem to lack the ability to differentiate between doing a job and being able to do a job. Sure, not all NCAA coaches have all of the certs I mentioned (nor did I claim they did), but if you look at the most successful ones, you will see a direct correlation between coaching certs/higher level degrees/awards from coaching and mentoring orgs and wins. Coach K. Done. Some have a job, others do their job. Its the ones that do their job that are most successful.
Now, moving on, I can tell you that puting a kid in a "certain environment" as you put it will make a kid ok despite what you claim. You are 100% wrong on that one unless the kid is Charles Manson. Put a kid, perhaps a kid from Anacostia, in an environment such as Woodberry Forest, which is a 7 day boarding school with great teachers, tutors, counselors, etc.. and that kid will succeed. Or put a kid at a Choate, Blair, Andover, Avon, Hackley, G'Town Prep, or any of dozens of other private schools with which I have worked, and I can tell you that kid will succeed, because the numbers prove it to be true. Now, had you used the word "any" rather than "certain" your post may have had at least minimal merit, but you neglected to do that.
Check out prepforprep.org which takes kids from some of the shittiest situations in the world and gets them into a "certain environment" which leads to success before you claim to know about what will work best for kids. Or, walk over to KIPP on Alabama Ave or WJA. Im curious to know which kids you claim to work with as the ones I had in the right environments all seem to be killing it now.
Finally, as to your comment, "If this rule helps one kid getinto college and become a successful preson then what does it hurt?", well, there are a number of people on a number of levels who get hurt. Here goes.
1. Ill start with the DCPS as a whole (or hole, which it is). DCP schools are a joke. Rhee tried her ass off and made strides, but it is obvious with Henderson in place, it is going to get worse. So, even if a kid gets a fifth year at a DCPS said kid is worse off having spent more time there than they would have been attending a decent private or charter for four. This is a fact. The numbers show that kids in DCPS with the exception of Wilson actually regress over time.
2. The cost associated far outweighs the benefit overall. DCPS already spends more dollars per student than just about any district in the nation, and their results are laughable. More tax dollars being spent on kids getting a crap education just to be able to be on a playing field or court for a fifth year is unjustifiable.
3. Alternative educational options are A. affordable B. Easy enough to seek out and C. Better options. All that needs to be done is educate the parents of kids about said options. Prep schools are dying for diversity and there are tons of non-profits that assist with placement. Many charter schools are hurting for numbers. Rather than waste $$ on paying for a kid to attend a DCPS for a fifth year, the district might be better served educating parents on programs that provide scholarships for private school ed or about the many wonderful PCS in the District and outside the borders.
My two cents.
| Reply To | 0 |
0 |
To your point certification is a start. The WOodbury Forest point you where making, not always true. I have friends that where aprt of the Dreams Program that where placed at Woodbury, that found that it wasn't the greatest fit. Are they successful now, yes. In fact one of them transfered back to DCIAA, graduated went to college played ball and is now a very successful Biologist for one of the top companies in this country. DCIAA didn't fail. The points here are subjective at best. You see it your way because of your experiences and I see it mine because of mine. Yes there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed in DCPS but if we take your point there would be no DCPS and then where would those kids end up, your charter schools or on the street...holding a gun to your head...the way I see it, let DCPS do what they have to to keep them off the street and those that choice to attend private or charter schools let them. In either case adults need to do better by these kids and unless you have a better way of handling it and willing and able to step in and fix it, all you doing is giving lip service to the subject. Those that are in the position are only doing what they feel is best based on what they have at hand. It's easy being Monday Morning QB's on subjects like this.
| Reply To | 0 |
0 |
"Coach":
Thanks much for the response, but again, I’m afraid you didn’t fully absorb everything I said. I need to start with one question: I’m well versed in the DREAMS Program, and the only one I nor any of my colleagues know of have zero relationship with WF. But, that being said, I don’t know of any school named Woodbury, so please clarify which school you were attempting to reference. Where is this mythical school? Anyway, I assume you got the name of the program wrong, butchered the name of the school, or got the school the kid you referred to wrong. Clarify which end you were wrong on when you get a moment.
Moving on, please don’t pretend to claim to know why I make the points I make. I don’t "see" things because of my experiences. I KNOW things because of the success rate of those entering the program I happened to run. I KNOW 100% of the students in the program for which I worked ended up in elite private schools, public charter schools, or Wilson, which is a far better alternative to any other DCIAA School. I know 100% of the kids involved in the program I worked for previously ended up in 4 year colleges after HS. I also know about 10% of DC high school students end up in the same boat. But at least the DCPS “Keeps kids off the street” as you stated. It would be cheaper to give these kids a roll of quarters and let them go to an arcade to keep them off the streets, which is clearly what you think the role of DCPS is. You “see" things as you want because you live on anecdotes and irrelevant info. I know things based upon empirical evidence. Massive difference. Look up the words you don’t know when you get a moment. Thank me for expanding your vocabulary. Go back and re-read the above. Then attempt to respond.
Further, at no point did I state that DCPS should not exist, but again, seeing as how you see things as you want them to be, I’m not too shocked made that claim. The closest I came to saying that was the DCPS should spend more money on educating parents on alternative educational options for their kids. Studies have proven that my suggestion would A. lower taxes for DC residents and B. raise overall success rates for DC students. And, the horrifying scenario of someone with a gun to my head as you suggested wouldn’t come true if less tax dollars were being spent on ed in DC as there would likely be more cops on the street. But, either way, I like how you assume that all DC kids would put a gun in their hand and mug people if they didn’t get the educational options they needed. That comment you made is ignorant at best and racist at worst. Shame on you.
Finally, a few more comments on your inane response. 1. I did offer a better way of handling it. See the points in my previous posts. 2. I have handed a very solid template in the past for better ways of handling the problems to DCPS officials, and they have adopted many aspects of it. The biggest items they have pushed forward based upon my and others suggestions was to push kids towards PC and Private schools. 3. Don’t pretend to be a standard-bearer for education when you cannot spell, do not know when to capitalize words, cannot determine when to use their as opposed to there, and overall lack a basic grasp of the English language.
But TY, overall you proved my point. You are what I want DCPS students protected from: an individual who has subpar reading comprehension skills, coupled with terrible grammar, and very poor analytical ability. You are why kids in DCPS shouldn’t get a fifth year of school, because it means they are subjected to another year of your inane gibberish.
Again, my two cents.
| Reply To | 0 |
0 |
Me speaking to you is like the moon barking at the dog. To assume that I am not educated forces me to end this dialalog forces me to end this dialog. For your information I have a Bachelors of Science in Management and Master in Sport Administration. I am in the process of earning my Doctorate from the US Sports Academy as we speak. You set on the other end of the computer, trying to show how smart you are and speak to what you feel is best for all without objectivity.
For my point of the gun being at your head, I am speaking to the fact that without and education and no alternative methods for survival a person will go to any length to survive. That doesn’t speak to race, that speaks to human nature for survival.
The school was Woodberry Forest, the program was the Dreamer Program and three students from Eliot Jr. High School were placed there and forced to repeat the ninth grade. All three students never finished at the school and returned to DCPS and had trouble graduating on time from DCPS because of this repeating of courses. Iknow this because I looked at attending school there but choose anther private school. I will admit that attending the private school was a great experience and I learned a lot about myself and people in general. I wouldn't trade that experience for anything in the world, but in the end that wasn't the school for me. I have recommend that school to other, yes I have and I will continue to, but I will always tell people that is must be the best fit for you.
My final statement is don't ever think you know me or anyones background. So please, stop trying to act as if you are the know all to be all and see this as just a conversation between people of differing opinions. I even say that you do have a point of parents seeking out the best academic situation for their child, but that does not mean that that is only found in private schools, charter schools or Wilson.What’s good for some is not good for all is my point to this conversation.
Maybe will speak again, and maybe not...
| Reply To | 0 |
0 |
The 5th rule...is mirrored after the NCAA hardship wavier rule. You aren't rewarding students for not succeeding you are just not punishing them for things beyond their control. Clearly none of you would understand a student that would find themselves in this position yet you are will to throw them away. This has nothing to do with their academic either...They would still have to meet those standards as well.
| Reply To | 0 |
0 |
I wonder if we forget that sports in school is to give these kids something to do to keep them out of trouble while entertaining you fans. It's to teach them lessons about teamwork, and life...If we throw these kids away without giving them a chance to succeed then what is the point of sports in the first place. At the end of the day it's for the kids and not for the fans who all think they know best.
| Reply To | 0 |
0 |
default avatar
dcjon
Re: Possible 5th year athletics in DCPS
Report Abuse
Im pretty sure Im going to catch hell for this but I don’t care. This proposal is a horrible joke. The caveat that made me choke was the one allowing an extra year of eligibility for teenage pregnancy. The DCIAA is basically ok’ing sex amongst teenagers. Not just ok’ing actually, but rewarding it as they are extending exceptions to someone who had a kid that someone who tore an ACL would not get. I know kids are having sex, I’m accepting of that fact I guess, but I don’t think special exceptions should be made as a result of their lack of foresight. I didn’t see anywhere on the DCIAA “exceptions list” that kids who drive DWI and nearly kill themselves doing so get another year of eligibility, so Im at a loss as to why pregnancy would warrant it.
Someone who tears an ACL (an ACL tear is a typical sports injury as defined by the DCIAA btw) in HS deserves an extra year of eligibility provided it happened on the athletic field far more than someone who gets preggers. But, under the DCIAA proposal a female who tears her ACL and misses a season had better go out and get pregnant quick if she wishes to get that season back as a pregnant girl in DC will get another year of eligibility far quicker than one who had an ACL tear. Someone who lacked the foresight to use birth control, or who lacked the intelligence to tell her significant other to throw on a condom does not deserve the same treatment as someone who busted their butt on the field and got injured.
I understand that Title XI covers pregnancy, but that applies to college students who were deemed deserving both academically and athletically of attending a division one institution. In the DCPS approx. 10% of kids move on to college, so they should not be treated the same way. 1. They are younger and 2. The vast majority are, for whatever reason, not deemed ready for college, so the Title XI argument should not apply to them. They should be treated as kids, and, as such, should not be rewarded for miscues.
If the DCIAA/DCPS were really looking to do right by the new moms who didn’t think ahead, they would forbid them from participating in extra-curricular activities at all. Instead, they should expand the already existing day care system that is in DCPS schools and mandate that these HS students with kids attend parenting courses after school rather than play a sport. At least then these new parents would at least have a foundation for raising their kids.
But, everything I posted above is beyond the point as the DCIAA shouldn’t be granting a fifth year of eligibility. If a kid cant graduate in 4 years, it indicates that, due to any number of reasons, he or she needs more time in a classroom. So rather than offer up more time on the court or field, allow that kid more time in a classroom with specialized tutors to get them back up to speed.
Reply To This Post
OMG HERE IS PROOF THERE IS AT LEAST HOPE FOR ONE OF US......I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU WROTE!
SO IN THIS SPIRIT I AM GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME OF ADVICE.
ATTACK WHAT I SAY ALL YOU WANT BY PROVING WHAT I SAY MAY BE WRONG BY SITING EXAMPLES AS I DO TO YOU.
ALL YOU ACCOMP0LISH WHEN YOU ATTACK ME PERSONALLY IS SHOWING HOW PATHETIC PERSON YOU ARE AND YOUR TOTAL LACK OF CLASS!
I HAVE APOLOGIZED NOW 3 TIMES FOR MAKING A FOOL OF YOU 3 YEARS AGO0 AND ASKED YOU TO REFRAIN FROM ATTACKING ME PERSONALLY AND ATTACK WHAT I WRITE.
I HAVEN'T BEEN ON THIS SITE FOR MONTHS AND IMAGINE MY SUPRISE WHEN I SEE YOU STILL ARE ATTACKING ME ON THREADS I HAVEN'T EVEN POSTED ON
I APOLOGIZED FOR EMBARRESSING YOU OVER 3 YEARS AGO A NUMBER OF TIMES, GO SEEK MEDICAL HELP IF YOU CAN'T LET IT GO!
BECAUSE IF YOU COULDN'T HANDLE WHAT I SAID ABOUT YOU 3 YEARS AGO, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO HANDLE WHATS IN STORE FOR YOU IF YOU DON'T STOP THE "PERSONALL" ATTACKS. EVERY SUBJECTIVE STATEMENT YOU WRITE AND IS WRONG I WILL SITE OBJECTIVE SOURSES PROVING HOW WRONG YOU ARE!
I GAVE YOU A TASTE TONITE, I AM DONE IF YOU ARE
ATTACK WHAT I WRITE ALL YOU WANT IF YOU CAN!!!
| Reply To | 0 |
0 |
Mr Stevens:
I am unclear about the nature of your response, especially as it appears more than two mos after the actual content of the chain actually ended. Coachbennett made some excellent points, although we werent on the same page on a number of them. That being said, I am happy to agree to disagree with the man. It is clear he has the best interests of those with whom he works in his mind and I appreciate that.
Based upon your post, I honestly want to wretch. If you agree with me, clearly I am wrong as you lack the intelligence to stack Lego's together. I have no idea what you are talking about as I am fairly certain I haven't been posting on this website for three years as you have claimed. If I have, and you have held some sort of grudge for this long, this is a "you" problem, not a "me" problem.
If you would like to continue this conflict you have invented in your mind, I would be happy to let the world know about your lengthy arrest record. I am sure Colin would love to see that. Btw, this is why you shouldn't give out personal info on a website.
Now, to bring this back to the point of the thread. The DCIAA has some serious issues. I would love to hear f/u to previous posts.
| Reply To | 0 |
0 |
