THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, September 24, 1996 TAG: 9609240438
SECTION: SPORTS PAGE: C1 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Column
SOURCE: Tom Robinson
LENGTH: 65 lines
The Virginia Beach school board is considering raising the academic standard for participation in athletics and other extracurricular activities.
Here's hoping the Beach joins Suffolk and Portsmouth as local districts that demand a 2.0, or C, grade-point average in exchange for after-school privileges, from baseball to band practice.
The higher-standard discussion always sparks debate - Well, goes one argument, if 2.0 is average, somebody has to be below average. Why punish a good kid who's a C-minus student?
To me, though, lobbying for the status quo shows short-sightedness by anyone concerned with the advancement of our children and society.
Now, the only thing many high schools require for extracurricular eligibility is what's written in the Virginia High School League handbook: passing five classes in the previous semester, even with five D-minuses, and currently being enrolled in five.
That's so shallow it's practically embarrassing. The education of students, athlete or otherwise, involves teaching skills for life-long success, things like thinking, reasoning and problem solving.
Placing D-minus standards before students, especially those with limited exposure to higher education and achievement, instead says that by merely scraping by, they can get something they cherish - i.e. playing quarterback - for next to nothing.
In the case of athletics, that's totally contrary to their mission. With meeting challenges comes a sense of purpose, confidence and discipline. Likewise, reducing challenges plays to one of the least appealing parts of human nature, the little voice that says, `Why sweat if I don't have to?' ''
Athletes, of course, have been in this spotlight for years. Proposition 48, adopted by the NCAA in the early '80s, first demanded a 2.0 high school average in a specified core curriculum for freshman eligibility, though students who didn't qualify could still accept scholarships but not play.
Later, Proposition 42 barred non-qualifiers from accepting scholarships. Now, a sliding scale allows lower standardized test scores for higher GPAs, and vice-versa.
The initial toughening was widely unpopular among black educators who cited cultural and socioeconomic bias for poor performance of black students on standardized tests.
This is where I take my cue from a most provocative and thoughtful thinker, the late Arthur Ashe. The black tennis champion called the cultural bias argument ``ridiculous'' and clashed with black coaches who predicted doom in the NCAA's actions.
The root of Ashe's position was simply that, as he wrote in his memoir, ``Days of Grace,'' ``kids would rise to the challenge and meet'' the new standards. Larger demands had to be made for the greater good, and they ``would motivate high school coaches and their best players to take education seriously.''
One thing the 2.0 requirement does is weaken the notion that the athlete, particularly the star, is there to be pampered until a college coach comes along to assume the coddling.
As Ashe believed, the ``you owe me'' sentiment that we allow to develop in young athletes is a terrible thing. ``One can be sure,'' Ashe wrote, ``that an adolescent with such an attitude will make no particular effort at scholastics. Why should he? His teacher (black or white) owes him a passing grade.''
No. What high school student-athletes need to know is that they owe themselves every chance at a well-rounded life. A 2.0 standard would remind them, and they cannot be reminded enough. by CNB