No more championships in school sports.

If you support the idea of no valedictorians, is this also a good idea, for the same reasons? Kids devoting time to sports rather than intellectual pursuits, all the pressure, etc...

So how about group-awards for the best teams, the second-best teams, and so on?


I can't get any supporters of eliminating the competition for valedictorian to answer in the thread about that, so I thought I'd start my own.

:7

For example

2 kids enter, one kid leaves.

Who runs Bartertown?

given up MVP in honor of "participation awards".

You're rewarded for showing up. :shrug:

point as I announce their names to list a few of their best qualities or attempts I saw over the season. Not every kid can be MVP, but all of them have some way in which they shine and they should be applauded for it. :) (Of course, this is for an elementary school team and pretty much the way things are handled for this age group.)

Include Soccer? :shrug: :hi:

If competition for a title is unhealthy, then we shouldn't just end one kind, right?

:shrug: :shrug:
I dont understand what you are trying to get at.....:shrug: :hi:

I think kids should be focused on intellectual pursuits, but I ALSO think that sports/athletics/activities other than school are important as well.

I think it has been proven that physical activity helps young kids learn better. I know my head works better after a run. plus, it is simply healthy to be active.

Also competition forces the kid to work harder to succeed, building work ethic. Competition is a healthy as well, sure it can be taken too far but I blame that more on the parents than the kids.

I am a proponent of balance in life, young and old alike.

I guess it boils down to why I agree with capitalism, without a reward there is no incentive to work hard, or to innovate, or push the boundaries of science, etc..

video games, then Internet, and TV have made kids today lazier and more lethargic than ever. As much as I hate the financial drain school sports puts on academics, physical education is vital in developing attitudes toward proper physical health and well being. There is a key balance between the body and mind and that same balance should reflect in education by not allowing sports to be the dominant priority.

Only that there shouldn't be any award for the best team or the best competitor. And I don't even really agree with that idea, I'm only trying to figure out whether those who think it's good to eliminate one form of awarding a 'best' kind of prize would agree with eliminating them all, for the same reasons... and if not, what the difference is.

That said, I do disagree that capitalism provides people with an incentive to work hard or push the boundaries of science.

Pushing the boundaries of science is usually very unrewarding, financially speaking. Only seeking out new ways to make money is very financially rewarding (e.g. researching boner pills, or new fake boobs)... the real scientists doing it for the love of discovery are lucky to get a financial reward for their studies.

Cause thats the opposite?

If there is no incentive to succeed we end up in a race to the bottom. For examples see North Korea, or the former Soviet Union.

I will take capitalism anyday over that.

okay...

:)

from someone that has nothing intelligent with which to respond.

:eyes:

the whole "real communism hasn't been tried yet" argument... if you've missed them well you can sure look them up if you're interested.

that was not my argument at all.

Okay, to give you a serious answer, I don't think the best situation is 100% capitalism or socialism, but a mix of both.

And I don't see too much downside to awarding the top acheiver, either in sports or academia. :)

I would go for more capitalism with some regulation that fosters competition in a fair marketplace as well as social programs to help those that cant help themselves.

Let's have sex.

Your place or mine?

Behind the bushes like last time.

I'm pure class, baby.

Lets do it behind the clintons this time, the Bushs creep me out.

Afternoon club teams, paid for with your own money, on your own time. School is for academics.

And no getting out of class for games, either.

it would bite the dust without school support. :(

My college-age sister cheers for a private team. It's expensive, but she wants to do it enough to pay for it, so she does.

liability insurance is a blanket policy so it covers us too. That and uniforms are all the school provides. The rest of the finances is up to the cheerleaders' families.

So to say that the school should cover all the other school sport teams but not us would be inherently unfair and possibly in violation of Title IX, which was one of the main reasons our state declared cheer an official school sport rather than a club activity back in the 80s.

And cheer as a solution to title IX is lame, unless the basketball team shows up at cheer competitions to sing the cheer team's praises.

athletes in their own right and deserve the chance to compete the same as any other sports team does. As far as Title IX goes it was a very good thing to have happen to cheerleading not only for equality in funding but also those states which chose to declare cheerleading a sport were then obligated to create safety guidelines for it and a body of regulators to oversee it.

The trouble with cutting out school sports is the same as cutting out music and the arts. Some kids just aren't going to get access to those things outside the school setting. Frankly I think that if a parent does not like school sports then they should not let their kids get involved, but that's no reason to rain on everyone else's parade. The real point is to maintain focus on education and not let sports and other extra-curricular clubs get out of hand priority-wise, not to deprive kids altogether.

Nobody suffers from lack of cheer/football/whatever experience, but all kids suffer from old books, reduced library hours, etc.

And that stuff is what parks and rec is for.

the money for both education and extra-curricular rather than cut out the latter.

Right now the there are two huge issues impacting quality of education, and funding is only one of them. The other is the whole "teach to the test" approach and the general dumbing down of the curriculum. I supplement at home and play educational games with the kids and have them watch documentaries because I feel they aren't challenged enough at school.

but quite another to say that education is all, period.

Why not just let girls get together and cheer, without making it such a big deal that it needs so much funding? It really is just cheering, after all. And LeftyMom makes a good point...why expect the none-cheering kids to subsidize it?

getting together to cheer the kids do enjoy that but they also like to have an audience, and they cannot show what they are truly capable of at ball games.

As I said before the only funding we get from the school is for uniforms, same as all the rest of the school teams. Any other money needed comes from fund raising and out of family pockets.

(And as for "it really is just cheering after all" well let's just say we'll have to agree to disagree. One person's trash is another person's treasure. It's one of my passions and is for my cheer kids too. :) )

at ball games."

:wtf:

They show more school spirit at the mall or something? :shrug:

hardwood floor of the b-ball court. They have to perform those on a matted surface. (Obviously we're not talking about the spirit part of cheer here but the technical aspects.)

I've been to hundreds of high school sporting events, from football to field hockey and even lacrosse once, and not at one have I seen cheerleaders put an emphasis on, or even very much effort into, leading cheers. It's as if that's something they have to get through so they can put on their halftime show, which consists not of cheerleading but of dancing and some tumbling.

So, I wonder — why is it called "cheerleading" when the emphasis apparently isn't on the leading of cheers? :shrug:

(For that matter, of all those sporting events, I think cheerleaders were present at perhaps two that were girls' sports, which is something else I don't understand. But then, I also don't understand why many sportswriters and even some schools insist on calling their girls'/women's teams "the Lady Mascots," as if they were an auxiliary group or otherwise separate from the male Mascots.)

for a lot of them they prefer the performance and competition aspect of it. I know that is the case with my own kids. But personally I loved cheering at the games as much as competing. I was always the one who started the "Gimme an M" cheers. :)

As to why it's still called "cheerleading", maybe it's just that the name has stuck. All-star, which is competitive only and is no way involved with supporting other teams, is still called cheerleading by many people despite an effort to switch to "cheer" and "cheer athletes".

The high school here has won the state music championship 12 years in a row. This means music contests take precedence over EVERYTHING--even in middle school. I've finally given up trying to require anything of my confirmands who are in band. If there's a band contest or music festival on the weekend of confirmation retreat, the kids can FAIL band or choir if they go on the retreat....even though it's on a weekend. I've had parents try to talk to the music teachers, but to no avail. Music trumps everything...so they can keep the title!!

God forbid they should give the kids a single weekend so they can learn about their families' religious traditions.

seriously.

I bet you want the schools to stop with music classes and activities too?

:eyes:

but since so few people get enough exercise, I now think it should be offered, but that the student should get to decide what form of physical exercise they participate in. Sports builds good people skills, I think... but for students who are introverts perhaps they could offer aerobics / some other non-competitive form of exercise as an alternative.

They already do that.

thinks is a good idea.

I was a nerdy kid in school, and PE was frickin traumatic for me. :P

that we really can't afford team sports - although we did have a small cross country team for a while - that was a good thing, the kids really looked forward to it.

but I think as kids get older they really benefit from team sports... I'm not sure what the balance is. I guess I see school sports as a reward/incentive for kids to do better in school and/or enhance their academics.

I agree with someone upthread who noted that sports participation tends to approve academics.

I personally love a good reductio ad absurdum argument.

However, the assumption you are making is that anyone is saying competition is a bad thing. Thats not the point.

Kids will still compete academically, just as they do athletically. They will compete to see who makes high enough grades to reach honor roll, National Honor Society, and to see who can graduate cum laude etc. The question is whether in today's academic environment the valedictorian thing is taking competition too far.

As I see it, it is a competition that has almost no positives and some definite negatives. Much like the third place game in the World Cup.

So... as with the removal of the title of 'valedictorian' there would be no recognition of a best team or best individual competitor in any sport... only group-type awards, as is suggested as a replacement for the competition for the honor of being the valedictorian.

That clear it up?

It seems to me that the academic equivalent of that would be no academic ranking, no cum laude, no honor roll etc. I don't think anyone proposed that.

Of course, the subject we haven't even reached yet is "can you even compare athletics to academics?".

The entire purpose of organized athletics (as opposed to PE) is competition. The purpose of academics is "is our kids learning?."

How is a top honor for sports any different than a top honor for academics?

We're comparing how one form of competition is unacceptable, but the other one is.

Some are good with math, science, english or whatever academic subject you can think of. Others are good with their hands and making, creating, or fixing things. Others are gifted with regards to athletic performance. We should give kids every opportunity to make themselves into well-rounded individuals. If that means competitive athletics, so be it. I have no problem with showing kids how to work with others toward a common goal, dealing with the successes and losses in life.

I say this as not only the fat nerdy kid with glasses who was always picked last for the team. Hell, sometimes I wasn't even picked. But such is life. What I do have a problem with are those who fall between the cracks as it were. It's easy as hell to give encouragement to a straight A student or a good athlete. Others who seem to be stuck with the "Average" label just get lost in the shuffle. They're the ones who have to figure things out on their own.

AT ALL COSTS!!!!

STEAL! LIE! CHEAT! KILL!

WHATEVER IT TAKES!!!!!

U-S-A!
U-S-A!
U-S-A!
U-S-A!
U-S-A!
U-S-A!
U-S-A!
U-S-A!
U-S-A!
U-S-A!

:wtf:

:rofl:

Okay!

(But not in footie! :loveya:)

:P

:shrug:

were playing for the state title this weekend.

Not having a classically chosen valedictorian does not mean that a school cannot have competitive sports teams. Or competitive academic teams. Not sure how they have done in the last couple of years, but my sons' high school was also national Academic Decathlon champs for something like 5 years running.

how is it reasonable to deny kids the academic title, while allowing the sports title?

How is that fair?

And when you have a school with 30 kids with perfect grades for 4 years how do you pick just 1 for this "honor"? Seriously, they were stressing about getting a 99 instead of 100 on a paper, getting hospitalized. What good can come of that?

And lots of kids who may have missed out on valedictorian were just fine with winning a state sports title. Yep, they were alot of the same kids.

I guess I am missing why these two things are even connected???

kids get hospitalized for doing performance enhancing drugs to get to be the best in sports... so why reward them for being 'the best' why not just reward a whole group for being 'really great'.

They're connected because if people think it's somehow bad to reward the best in academics, then since I don't see how it's different to reward the best in sports. So IMO if we get rid of one, we should do away with the other, too.