104

The

High School Athlete College Student-Athlete Richard E. Lapchick Center for the Study of Northeastern University

In a debate

&dquo;God made

a

in

the Future

Society

academic standards, North Carolina Representative Mickey Micheaux. said folks smart and God made some folks athletes. I think they both deserve a

on

some

chance. &dquo; As

Sport

as

society,

we

have created the

image

of the &dquo;dumb j jock&dquo;: students and athletes as

mutually exclusive entities. The worst victim of this stereotype has been the athlete, whose sense of personal responsibility has been removed by his parents, coaches, counselors, teachers, and the media. non-existent.

In the process, his sense of self-worth off the field has become virtually Almost without exception when an athlete displays intelligence, many express

surprise. We simply don’t expect inspiration, genius, soul and talent from our sports heroes. They are, quite bluntly, dumb jocks. Our stereotypes lead us to create our own self-fulfilling prophecies. While we are increasingly aware of the problem of exploitation of college athletes, we are woefully ignorant of the fact that the problem is far worse for the high school student. Universities begin working with people whose human potential has been diminished by the time they reach that level. At least they have made it to college and can get help. This paper concerns the virtually ignored issue of the exploitation of high school athletes. With all the media attention on problems of professional athletes in trouble with the law and colleges and universities in trouble with the NCAA, we forget that all of these athletes were produced by our high school system. What is more painful is to see some of the millions of America’s youth who have lost their chance at a meaningful education because they have bought the dream that they will beat the 10,000 to 1 odds and become a pro, stressing eligibility and not educational skills. The worst tragedies are the 99 out of 100 who won’t even get a chance to play at a Division I college. Cheated out of their educational skills by the pressure to produce athletically, their futures are in great jeopardy.

Symptoms of the Illne ss All the

problems of college sport exist at the high school level. Notre Dame coach &dquo;Digger&dquo; Phelps could well have been talking about high school basketball when he said, &dquo;we have a serious problem. We forget that national championships are moments. Education is something that lasts a lifetime. College sports are an embarrassment to all of us involved in them. &dquo;( 1 )

.

Red-shirting at colleges is now common. But we also read stories about parents red-shirting their eighth grade children in &dquo;football states&dquo; like Georgia and Oklahoma and the press shrugs it off because that’s the nature of sport in those states. But eighth graders are being redshirted in New York, Massachusetts, California and in every

comer

of the nation.

Like

105 college sports, high school sports seasons are now year long. The three letter athlete is a part of history. Thus, year-round time demands reduce high school athletes’ opportunities to study and to diversify his or her athletic talent. (2) Higher minimum academic standards for high school athletes are a distant goal in most parts of the nation.(3) As recently as 1983, fewer than 100 of the 16,000 school districts in the United States had such standards. A basketball player can play with straight D+’s for four years in Massachusetts. (4) New York, Maine, Maryland, Vermont and Minnesota had no statewide requirement whatsoever as late as March 1986. (5) Studies show that no region is immune from the sports madness that has swept the nation. Thirty million children compete in youth sport programs. (6) In 1986 at the high school level, 3.3 million boys and 1.8 million girls played high school sports, with 953,516 boys playing football and 505,130 boys playing basketball.(7) Only 17,623 play Division I college football and men’s basketball, the sports most identified with the scandals. (8) Fewer than 3,500 play in the pros. That large pyramid at the bottom has a very narrow point at the top. Too many of our children are lost educationally while trying to scale the steep walls. (see fig. 1)

Academic Performance The typical student-athlete, contrary to the public’s image, performs as well or better academically than other students at both the college and high school levels. Engagement in the &dquo;community&dquo; life at both levels through sports appears to lead to a deeper involvement in school work in general. The most recently available NCAA study, examining male athletes who enrolled in 1975, showed that 52 9b graduated by 1981 compared to 41.5% of non-athletes who enrolled in 1975. Another 12.9% of the athletes were still pursuing their degrees.(9) A US Department of Education analysis of 30,000 high school sophomores and 28,000 seniors demonstrated that high school athletes outperform non-athletes academically. The study found that 88 % of varsity athletes had better than a 2.0 (C) grade point average (GPA) while 30% of all students had a C average ( 10)but only 67 9b of black and Hispanic male varsity athletes had better than a 2.0 GPA.(11) However, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) challenged the NCAA survey as being flawed because of the small return (25 % of the colleges polled) and technique (possibly self-interested athletic directors compiled the statistics.) The figures quoted above for colleges and high schools are for all sports. It is widely acknowledged that most of the educational problems of athletes are in football and basketball, the revenue sports. A survey showed that only 27% of Division I basketball players who had enrolled between 1972-73 and 1981-82 graduated by 1985.(12) Estimates are that 30% of Division IA football players graduate. A 65 page report by University of Florida Chancellor Charles B. Reed confirmed these estimates. The report analyzed the academic performance of student-athletes at Florida’s nine public universities. Only 27% of basketball players and 35% .

106

Figure 1. Pyramid of Sports Participation

Pyramid represents approximate numbers of those competing (from base up) youth sport, high school football and basketball, college football and

in

basketball, and the number who make pro football and basketball each year.

Sources:

National Federation of State High School Associations; National Collegiate Athletic Association; National Basketball Association and the NBA Players Association; National Football League and NFL Players Association.

107

of football

players (38%

of all male

athletes) graduated in six years compared to 47% of graduated at almost double the rate of women in general (64 % vs. 35 % ). ( 13) An earlier report from the University of Florida was even more striking. Only 11 % of its basketball players graduated in a student body where 70 ~ completed their degrees. (14) The illiteracy rate for high school football and basketball players is estimated at between 20 and 30%. This should not be shocking since it is now estimated that 409~ of college freshmen need remedial work. ( 15) Remedial math courses account for 25 ~ of all math courses offered in four year colleges.(16) Given the normal times of declining education standards across the country (see A Nation at Risk), it is perhaps less surprising that the demands and pressures of the revenue sports reduce the potential for full human growth of that special population of revenue non-athletes. Women athletes

sport athletes. Black and minority athletes The

problems are worse for the black athlete. A study of 1,359 black athletes and 4,067 by the Educational Testing Service for the NCAA showed that for freshmen in entering 1977, only 144% of the blacks surveyed had graduated after four years and 31 % after six years. This was compared to the 53 % of the whites surveyed who had graduated after six years.(17) The majority of the blacks who graduated received their degrees in physical education, sports administration, and communications. ( 18) All the data on opportunities in these fields showed that with or without degrees, blacks are virtually shut out of these areas. In fact, white athletes

the 1980 Statistical Abstract of the United States showed that between 1972 and 1979, the number of blacks

employed in these fields actually declined from 6.4 9~ to 4. 8 ~ of the total. ( 19) Emphasizing courses that will lead to continued eligibility is not, however, limited to black athletes. A 1986 study of 130 Division I basketball programs showed widespread patterns of clustering. Clustering takes place when at least 25 % of a team’s players major in a subject whose majors account for less than 5 % of the student body as a whole. The study showed that a full two-thirds of all programs showed clustering. It was more common for men than women, for blacks than whites, and for ranked programs than non-ranked programs. (20) Although little data exists documenting what courses athletes take, it is widely assumed that high school athletes in football and basketball are steered into courses that will keep them eligible while not necessarily preparing them to meet the new standards required if they are to play in college. In the Philadelphia Public League, where more than ~509b of the players are black, an athlete needs only a D + ( 1.5 GPA) to be eligible. 51.3 96 of the graduating seniors in this league did not meet the new college eligibility requirements under rule 5-1(j) (proposition 48) discussed below. However in the entire Philadelphia area, where the suburbs are predominantly white, slightly more than 93 % of the athletes met the new requirements. (21) A major part of the Proposition 48 requirements is having to complete 12 core academic courses that would prepare the student for college. The same core courses generally prepare students to do better on the standardized tests that are another part of the Proposition 48 requirements. It can be inferred that many athletes in Philadelphia were guided to &dquo;eligibility&dquo; courses and thus weren’t prepared for new requirements. A Washington Pbst study completed in 1985, prior to the implementation of Proposition 48, demonstrates how athletes took courses such as independent living, personal typing, and physical

108

education to get their GPA’s

high enough

to

be admitted to

college.

Athletes with GPA’s far

below the norm suddenly became &dquo;academic whizzes&dquo; in their senior years. (22)

The Move Toward Academic Standards College level i. Proposition 48 The

public recognition of the scandal has led to a movement for higher academic standards by colleges and, increasingly, by high schools. The impetus began when the NCAA, under the leadership of the Presidents Commission, began searching for what eventually developed into NCAA Rule 5-1(j), commonly known as Proposition 48. The new standards, which created eligibility rules for incoming college freshmen in Division I and IA programs, referred totally to the athlete’s academic preparation in high school. The component regarding core curriculum and grade point average won universal approval. However, the requirement for minimum scores on standardized tests aroused great concern on the part of black educators and civil rights leaders, since most educators agree that standardized achievement tests are culturally and racially biased. The concern was that Proposition 48 would have a disproportionately negative effect on black athletes and limit their opportunities to obtain college athletic scholarships. An NCAA study undertaken prior to implementation seemed to bear out that fear. The $200,000 study showed that 6 out of 7 black men’s basketball players and 3 out of 4 black men’ss football players would have been ineligible.(23) Implemented in the fall of 1986, far fewer freshmen athletes enrolled in Division I and IA programs were actually sidelined. Less than one in ten football players overall had to sit out. In basketball, 13 9b (137 of 990) became ineligible. Only 4.7% of women freshmen were ineligible.(24) However, the feared disproportionate number of blacks declared ineligible did prove true. A full 85 % of the 206 football players declared ineligible were black. This included 21 of 22 blacks in the Southwest Conference; all 25 in The Southwest; 14 of 15 in the Big Ten 10 of 11 in the PAC 10, 21 of 23 in the Big Eight and all 12 in the ACC. (25) Most agreed that there will be fewer and fewer ineligible students in the future as high school players take Proposition 48 more seriously. Louisiana State University basketball coach Dale Brown said, &dquo;you can tell a kid to turn off the TV and go to bed, and he’s not going to do it until you get up and slap him on the behind. These kids have been slapped. Good will come of this. &dquo;(26) The primary black educator who supported Proposition 48 was Harry Edwards, the noted advocate of athletes getting a meaningful education. Edwards said the standards were still too low. &dquo;It’s going to communicate to a generation of black athletes that we expect you to perform academically as well as athletically.&dquo; But, he hastened to add: Proposition 48 is not going to do much, because not very much is demanded. the

’

.

We’re

looking at the most minimum kinds of academic standards. What the really doing is not putting forth standards conducive to education. they are saying is you cannot come on campus and be functionally

NCAA is What

illiterate. (27)

109

this

While the greatest test of the utility of Proposition 48 will come when the graduation rate of year’s freshmen class is determined in five or six years, it is impressive to note the

short-term effect

this

year’s

those that entered this year. If the statistics in the NCAA study held for Division I and IA freshmen, then the figures would have looked like the data presented on

in Table 2.

*assuming 70% white, 30 9~ black totals **assuming 50~ white, 509b black totals

Thus, eventhough many declared ineligible in 1986 said they weren’t warned with sufficient notice of the impending standards, enough were so that 644 % more football players and 453 % more basketball players were eligible than would have been projected. As a cautionary note, the

figures are not available which might show how many students did not go to Division I and I-A schools because of Proposition 48. Even so, it would seem that Dr. Jack Davis, then NCAA President, was prophetic when he said that &dquo;Proposition 48 is a way to hold the feet of inner- city and rural schools to the fire. &dquo;(28) He felt it would be a club for the high schools to use to motivate athletes toward being better students. Thus, the predictions of disaster for athletes who were asked to do more proved false. Now Harry Edwards’ words that the standards were too low also sound prophetic. Many of the sidelined athletes viewed the rule positively and philosophically. DePaul’s Curtis Jackson noted, &dquo;I have grown alot; I’m hungry and the experience has been positive ... Alot of good things have been happening here. &dquo;(29) Keith Robinson of Notre Dame noted it will be a good thing in the long run, but the first group were victims of poor information and preparation: I think the test is O.K., but they should have put it in effect two years down the line to give these young kids a chance to really get prepared. Alot of kids whose parents aren’t wealthy are spending alot of time playing basketball. Somebody tells you this is the way out, so you play. You hit the books, but

110

you don’t

really

throw

yourself

into them because

you’re working

on

your

game. (30)

Michigan’s

coveted Rumeal Robinson said that

thought of

not

looked at

initially he was crushed by the news and the playing basketball competitively for the first time since the seventh grade. He

community side-effects: It

embarrassing. I don’t know if it was necessary to publicize the scores they did. It sort of puts a stigma on athletes that’s not really accurate.

was

the way

One time I went back home and this little kid I used to coach came up to

me

in ’

the

and said, ’Rumeal, I heard you were dumb.’ I hit the books in high school. I had a B average. The SAT was just that much further advanced. I did all right on the verbal part, but there were some things on the math that I’d

park

never seen

Parents

before. (31

were even

)

drawn into the controversy. In Rumeal Robinson’s case, his mother was in

favor of the rule: Of course, I would have liked for him to pass, but my gut feeling is that I’m Rumeal didn’t make the score this was a blessing in disguise,

happy

...

because you have to learn to cope with disappointment in life. I also don’t think freshmen should be eligible to play any sport their first year. I

number don’t

one

care

who the athlete is

school. Freshmen need has

a

or

where he

comes

from, college isn’t like high

year to acclimate themselves to

college life.

a dream, he wants to be a pro ballplayer, and this is direction. The first thing is education. (32)

a

Rumeal

step in that

ii. Freshmen Eligibility Ms. Robinson

brings up one of the most widely debated reforms proposed today: the entire question eligibility. A combined study by the American College Testing Program, the College Board, and the Educational Testing Service showed that freshmen scholarship athletes perform as well as freshmen non-athletes.(33) In spite of these results, there is a lingering doubt whether freshmen should play, especially in football and basketball programs. The major argument against allowing freshmen to play is that it is difficult enough for the average freshman to adjust to the new freedoms and responsibilities associated with college life. Add the pressures of playing in front of thousands of fans and TV cameras, and the adjustment is even that much more difficult. Further, if all freshmen were ineligible, it would remove the racial issue from Proposition 48. The primary impetus to end freshman eligibility is coming from Big Ten administrators and some coaches. Minnesota Vice-President Frank Wilderson said, &dquo;We should let freshmen have a chance to get a footing academically, &dquo;(34) University of Miami President Edward T. Foote stated that a freshman should not practice football, &dquo;before he knows where the library is, before he knows where the first class is. &dquo;(35) Illinois football coach Mike White elaborated, &dquo;I would agree that there are pressures with football with our spring practices and then the practices in the fall that make it extremely difficult on first year players. &dquo;(36) of freshman

111

High School Level i. No Pass/No Play Although there has been virtually no study of the subject, recent data indicate that freshmen in high school do suffer academically in the transition to their new level of schooling. So-called &dquo;no pass/no play&dquo; standards, which will be discussed at length, have had their greatest impact on freshmen and junior varsity athletes. Texas, with House Bill 72, had the first-in-the-nation legislation. In Dallas, as in the state as a whole, more than twice as many freshman players were ineligible as varsity athletes after implementation of the &dquo;no pass/no play&dquo; rules. As Table 3 shows, in 1986, almost 3 times the percentage of freshmen were ineligible as varsity basketball players; in football, almost four times as many freshmen had to sit out the six week marking period.

If

48 seemed controversial

college level, no pass/no play at the high publication of the Federal Government &dquo;A Nation At Texas Mark Governor White Risk,&dquo; report appointed a Special Committee on Education. Led by H. Ross Perot, the Committee came up with a $2.7 billion reform package. The single most controversial part was the no pass/no play provision stipulating that participating in an extracurricular activity was contingent on achieving a passing grade of at least 70 in every class. An ineligible athlete would have to sit out six weeks, a large percentage of the season. The move was strongly opposed by coaches and then by parents. The coaches formed a political action committee to defeat the Governor in his re-election. While there were other Proposition

school level became

a

political

on

the

maelstrom. After the

factors involved, part of Governor White’s defeat backing House Bill 72 so strongly.

was

attributable to the attack

on

him for

level, the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFSHA), coordinating body of all the individual state associations, vigorously objected to the strenuous On the national

a

standards of the Texas

legislation. While the Federation supported

minimum

academic

standards, it felt the 70 average and the inability to fail even a single subject was too stringent. The heat was on high when the results of the first grading period were announced. Texas, where football is

an

exalted event, lost 19.7 percent of its football

players

for the six week

marking

112 period. (39) students

In the winter, it lost 18.9% of its basketball

were

players,.(40)

Parents of

ineligible

demanding repeal.

ii . &dquo;No PasslNo

Play&dquo; in the Courts

The parents went to court. Marsha Anthony, Houston District Judge, ruled the act unconstitutional on the grounds it interfered with the family’s Fourteenth Amendment rights of

personal choice in family-related matters. Two ineligible baseball players were thus able to play in the Texas State semi-finals. When they won, parents of players on the losing team sued because of unfair competition. Orange District Judge David Dunn upheld the constitutionality of the act. The Texas Supreme Court stayed Judge Anthony’s ruling after Attorney General Jim ’

Mattox intervened. In West

Virginia had average

was

legitimately

Virginia,

the

Supreme Court of Appeals had ruled

on a

similar

question.

West

minimum &dquo;C&dquo; average for participation (you could fail a course as long as your a &dquo;C&dquo;). The West Virginia court ruled that the State Board of Education had

a

exercised its

authority

under its

general supervision powers

over

the educational

system and that students had no fundamental right to participate in extracurricular activities. The Texas Supreme Court said the act provided a strong incentive for students wishing

to

participate in extracurricular activities to maintain minimum levels of performance in all of their classes. Since the rule’s objective was to promote improved classroom performance by students, the court found it &dquo;rationally related to the legitimate state interest in providing a quality education to Texas public school students. &dquo;(42) The decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court but was dismissed for lack of a substantial federal question. (43) iii. Public Opinion on &dquo;No PassiNo Play&dquo; With judicial remedy out of the question, it was up to the proponents and opponents of the rule to take the next step. Public opinion was sought and the results were surprising. Both sides maintained their positions were supported by the Department of Education’s study on extracurricular activity cited earlier. The study showed that only 12% of the athletes nation-wide would be ineligible with a &dquo;C&dquo; average.(44) Opponents said this showed that those who participated in extracurricular activities became better students and loss of participation would discourage them and lead to decreased discipline, attendance and possibly to grade inflation. Brice C. Durbin, the Executive Director of NFSHA emphatically stated: High school athletic and non-athletic activities are not only supportive of the academic missions of schools, but ...are inherently educational and vital to the total development of students. Activities are not extracurricular. They are the other half of education. There is plenty of documented evidence ... that have participants usually attain better grades than non-participants better retention rates and daily attendance records, and are involved in far less disciplinary problems than non-participating counterparts. (45) ...

Proponents of &dquo;no pass/no play&dquo; claim that their intent is not to exclude bad kids from participation but to induce them to do better. Governor White used the analogy of a coach to make the point: Coaches know that you get the best performance out of athletes by challenging them to do more than they’ve ever done before or thought they could achieve.

113 A track coach doesn’t set the bar for the

high jump ... at a height the athlete has already cleared. The coach challenges the athlete by raising the bar higher than he has ever jumped before. And by raising the academic bar we are finding that athletes can jump higher than they dreamed they could jump. (47) But coaches weren’t

to the Governor’s side. Gordon

Wood, longtime High and a member of the Texas Athletic Hall of Fame, charged, &dquo;It’s not only no pass/no play, it’s also no practice. As soon as you brand a kid a dummy one time, he is going to find other outlets, and he’s going to get in with a gang or another group that are not going to be good for him. &dquo;(48)

necessarily moving

coach at Brownwood

H. Ross Perot confronted this attitude head-on at the state coaches convention when he

responded to this type of criticism by saying, &dquo;It is like saying if a boy is not on the team, he will be out robbing 7-Eleven stores. It’s a question of priorities. We will still have athletic teams, we will still have bands, but these won’t be the forces that drive education. &dquo;(49) Public opinion, slow to start, began to roll in favor of no pass/no play. A poll conducted by the Public Library at Texas A&M University showed that 70% of Texas residents favored the new law. Nationally, a Gallup Poll indicated that 90% of adults favored requiring a passing grade for participation. (50) A US News and World Report study showed 45 % of student leaders favored restricting those with less than a &dquo;C&dquo; average. The Federation’s own poll indicated that only 25% of the 7,000 high school juniors and seniors polled opposed the restrictions. (51) iv. Results The climate became even more positive when the second year results came in and showed that, in fact, students who were ineligible the first year had raised their grades and reclaimed eligibility. In Dallas, the rate of ineligibility for varsity football players dropped from 16% in 1985 to 7.2% in 1986.(52) For basketball, 11.8% were ineligible in 1986 compared to 17.8% in 1985.(53) The results held true for the state. Texans expressed surprise. All the dire forecasts see

unwarranted.

stunning. Table 4 shows the percentage of athletes ineligible is directly related to the size of the school. The clear implication is that the rate of ineligibility is directly related to decreased levels of attention being paid to students in larger schools. Educators feel such attention is particularly beneficial to the marginal student who would be the most likely candidate for poor grades in the first place. Some of the state-wide statistics

were

114

relationship of the coach and the player becomes critical in larger schools. In Dade County, Florida, Clint Albury took over as coach of Killian High School in 1983. He discovered his team’s GPA was 1.3. Horrified, he instituted a mandatory study hall. There were no eligibility standards but Albury brought in honor students to tutor his athletes. In specialized study hall, they taught math and English on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays; on Tuesdays and Thursdays they offered science and history. In 1986, the team’s GPA had been raised to 2.45. No one failed a course. At the end of the season, 23 players signed with colleges and universities. That was believed to be the highest number of signed players in Dade County history.(60) It appeared to be a testament to Albury. One argument against increased standards is that 10-20~ of students don’t have the native intelligence to achieve the standard, but an analysis of grade potentials in Kansas showed that a full 95 9b of high school students have the capacity to obtain a &dquo;C&dquo; average. The study showed that 133% had IQ’s above 115; 689~ had IQ’s of 85-115; another 13.6~ were between 70-85 and possible candidates for special education but otherwise capable of maintaining the &dquo;C&dquo; Consequently

the

average. (61) The conclusion is also confirmed

by

a

study by

the US

Department

of Education

on

participation in extracurricular activities referred to in other sections of this paper. It showed that 87. 5 ‘~ of male varsity athletes surveyed would have met the requirements if they had been in place

at the time of the

study. According to Education Week, &dquo;the study offers reassurance to recently moved to require minimum GPAs for students involved in &dquo;C&dquo; average, or 2.0 on a 4 point scale would not be a threat to many

schools districts that have

requiring a students. &dquo;(62) v. &dquo;No PassJNo Play&dquo; in otherlocalities sports

...

adopted similar standards of eligibility but they had been ignored at the time. By 1986, they were confirming the Texas experience. It is instructive to look at three such areas from different regions of the country: Los Angeles and Orange County, Savannah, and Prince Georges County. vi a. The Los Angeles and Orange County Arenas The Los Angeles city schools announced a no pass/no play policy with a &dquo;C&dquo; average, no F’s allowed, in 1982. It was called an &dquo;academic remedy for scholastically ailing students. &dquo;(63) Within a year, 7 of the neighboring 15 Orange County school districts adopted some form of a &dquo;C&dquo; rule. The controversy was great in the Los Angeles area as it was in Texas. Coaches lined up against it at first. Reflecting on those who might be declared ineligible, Santa Ana football coach Dick Hill said, &dquo;I think young people are being deprived of the opportunity of being captured by high school education. &dquo;(65) Most of the districts (Anaheim, Fullerton [by petition], Huntington Beach, Irvine, Los Alamitos, Orange, Santa Ana and Tustin) responded to criticism of harshness by adding a probationary period in which a student who drops below the &dquo;C&dquo; average would have one marking period to raise his or her grade prior to being declared ineligible. Others complained about &dquo;no F&dquo; rules. Stan Thomas, an administrator in Tustin and a former coach, emphasized that &dquo;I think the ’no F’ rule is a bad one. Will a student on a football team or the drill team take chemistry, physics, or calculus with this rule you’ll fmd students reducing Governor White and his supporters had cited results in cities that had

tl

...

115

their workload with this rule. &dquo;(66) In response, &dquo;no F&dquo; rule to be part of their standards.

only the Brea and Santa Ana districts allowed the

The patterns of

ineligibility were the same in all districts. Teams were initially decimated imposed without probationary periods. By the following year, however, the vast majority of athletes were back in good academic standing. City-wide figures in Los Angeles were dramatic. Twenty-one percent became ineligible in the fall of the first quarter. Only 169~ were still ineligible in the spring.(66) Fewer than 12% were below the standard in 1986. Furthermore, there was no significant rate of drop-out as had been predicted by some critics of when standards

the

were

measures.

vi b. SavaI1I1.1h-Chatham

County County (GA) School system is now in its third year of having a &dquo;C&dquo; average in place. In 1984-85, 275 student-athletes became ineligible. One year later, only 135 in all sports were ineligible. Overall, from the first year to the second, there was a 50.9% improvement. Superintendent Ronald E. Etheridge said, &dquo;That says to me that when these youngsters find out that we mean business, they will rise to the occasion. High expectations will bring about high achievement. &dquo;(67) We believe it’s just a matter of setting a standard and sticking with it. In.the Savannah―Chatham County public schools, having to pass a &dquo;C&dquo; average is as natural as putting on your helmet before going into the game. Our policy lessens the likelihood of having unmotivated students playing while serious students who are enrolled in academically vigorous courses are benched. Our policy encourages marginal students to keep trying while encouraging our academically motivated students to try new challenges. (68) In the second year of implementation, Savannah High School won 25 games and 13 of the team’s 15 players had a &dquo;B&dquo; average. Etheridge noted that &dquo;None had ever done that before. &dquo;(69) Etheridge felt so strongly about the results that the School Board raised the minimum average from 70 to 75 in 1987. It had been 60 when Etheridge became superintendent. (70) vi c. Prince Georges County The experience in Maryland’s Prince Georges County (PGC) clearly verifies three of the themes of this report. First of all, that grades will improve with increased academic standards; secondly, that those who participate in extracurricular activities do much better academically than those who do not; and finally, that coaches will rally to assist their players academically if standards are put in place. At first glance, the number of academically ineligible students in PGC is staggering. In the first quarter of 1986-87, 41.9% were ineligible for extracurricular activities. By the second quarter, 35. 05 9~ were ineligible. However, unlike all the other data cited for the State of Texas and other locales, PGC accounted for all students who would have been ineligible if they were participants. The other statistics were for those who actually were participants who became ineligible.(71) County figures showed that only 20% of participants were ineligible.(72) Furthermore, only 8% of athletes were ineligible in the last period cited when 35.059b of all students were ineligible. (73) This confirms the Department of Education figures cited elsewhere that participants in extracurricular activities generally perform better as students. The Savannah-Chatham

116 School Board Chairman, Tom Hendersnott, said the reform is now universally applauded. He said, &dquo;coaches, who initially opposed the measure in substantial numbers now provide academic support services for their athletes. The coaches now support the standards. They have &dquo; definitely been an effective motivator to improve the academic standards of our athletes.&dquo; Hendersnott added &dquo;The rule makes such asked

of

more

our

athletes? In Prince

good sense. Why did we have to wait so long until we Georges County, we once again have student-athletes

competing for us. &dquo;(74)

The Future There

be little doubt that

participation in sport can be a great educational vehicle to help develop the full potential of young people. In the ideal sense, there is so much to learn from sport. It teaches about self-discipline, about limits and capabilities, about dealing with failure and adversity, about teamwork and cooperation, hard work, group problem-solving, competitive spirit, self-esteem, self-confidence, and pride in accomplishment. Brice Durbin, the Executive Director of the National Federation of State High School Associations and a leading spokesperson advocating participation, said: &dquo;The philosophy behind this recommendation is based on the firm conviction that activities participation is a valuable educational experience every bit as important to the students’ development as the classroom experience. &dquo;(75) In addition, good sports programs become an alternative for those with idle time that can lead into patterns of alcohol and drug abuse. seems to

clear that the climate is strong for increased minimum academic standards. to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 40% of states recently approved

It does

seem

According tougher graduation requirements and 369b adopted tougher testing. Texas is now one of six states where at least a &dquo;C&dquo; average is required. The others are California, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Mexico, and West Virginia. A full list of state-by-state minimum standards is attached (see Appendix 1). Innumerable local districts have acted where states have not. At the national level, a group of more than 60 prominent school superintendents, college presidents, civil rights leaders, public officials, college football and basketball coaches, well known athletes and professional players association leaders have come together to move for the adoption of standards on a state and/or local level (see Appendix 2). After an internal survey was conducted to produce the most equitable standards, the group came up with a combination of the eligibility elements from all the existing plans: 1. A student must maintain a simple &dquo;C&dquo; average in all subjects combined. 2. A student would be allowed one &dquo;F&dquo; per year as long as the average remained at the &dquo;C&dquo; level.

[The first two provisions were suggested to avoid a situation where a student could have 2 B’s, an A, and an F and be ineligible. This happened in several districts in Texas. As long as a &dquo;C&dquo; average was maintained, the student could get one F per year] . 3. A student must take courses that are on a track for graduation and be making normal progress toward graduation. eliminate the apprehension that athletes who had to achieve would [This take easier courses] .

a

higher standard would

117 4. There would be one

probationary period. Thus, if a student dropped below a &dquo;C&dquo; or 2.0, the student would be on probation and not ineligible (for the first time only). [Provision 4 speaks to the problem of adequate warning. With Propostition 48 at the college level, students had warning and most were able to bring up their grades. Since this has generally not been the case at the high school level, the probationary period would alleviate this question of unfairness] . 5. If the average continues below a &dquo;C&dquo;, that student is removed from that activity until the grades improve to meet the minimum standard. 6. Once ineligible, athletes should receive academic help. [Opponents of standards believe that ineligible athletes would drop out of school once they were out of the coaches’ care. In many districts, coaches themselves have acted as grade monitors and have set up mandatory study halls and tutorial programs where they were necessary. Such programs would not add cost to the school budgets if the coaches did this voluntarily as they have in many districts to date]. 7. Exceptions should be made on an individualized basis for students with extenuating circumstances.

[Most would agree that provisions should be made for students with learning disabilities, English a second language, personal tragedy or other circumstances that might merit such consideration] . as

8. Administration of the rules should be left up to each

[The principals know the students better than

some

principal.

centralized agency. This

question

was

the

most controversial for this

group surveyed] . middle school students should receive non-mandatory warnings if fall below a &dquo;C&dquo; average noting that if they had been in high school, they would be

9. Junior

high

or

they ineligible for extracurricular activities. [The highest number of ineligible students where standards were in place were for freshmen and JV athletes. Such warnings at earlier levels would have prepared the freshmen athletes better for the new standards]. If increased standards are accepted for athletes, as this national group believes they should be, then these proposed variations would help to ease the transition and provide a fair set of standards acceptable to educators, athletes, coaches and civil rights advocates. Further studies need to be carried out in the following areas: 1. Academic records of high school athletes in football and basketball compared to other sports. 2. A study of high school transcripts to prevalent as it is at the college level.

see

if clustering for athletes at that level is as

of the effects of freshman year participation in football and basketball as compared to all other sports.

3.

A

study

college

and

high

school

study on the effects of Proposition 48 in terms of how many non-qualifiers went schools, or junior colleges, or who did not go to college at all. All studies should provide data on men’s and women’s sports and for blacks and whites. 4. A

to Division II or III

118

long term effect on who plays sports in college would seem to be very positive. With preparation at the high school level resulting from increased demands on athletes’ academic abilities, the future seems brighter for athletes learning once they arrive in college. John R. Davis, former President of the NCAA and professor of agriculture at Oregon State put it simply: &dquo;for the first time we are seeing a marked improvement in the types of athletes we’re getting. &dquo;(76) More importantly for society as a whole, the 99 % of high school players who won’t play Division I college ball will have a better chance at whatever they choose to do because more will have been expected from them. It seemed that for decades academic leaders in college and high school failed to ask more from our athletes, perhaps subconsciously or even consciously accepting the idea of a &dquo;dumb jock&dquo; culture. Now they have surprised even themselves with how quickly athletes have improved themselves when more was demanded of them. Many are asking, &dquo;Why did we wait so long to ask?&dquo; The

better

&dquo;

*This is

a

version of

Lapchick and John

an

article that will appear in Ethics 111

College Sports,

Richard E.

Slaughter (eds.), MacMillen Publishing Company, 1988.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

20. 21. 22.

Dallas Morning News, March 28, 1986. Richard Neal, interview, September 1984. Neal is Executive Director of the Massachusetts Interscholastic Association. USA Today, March 13, 1986.

Neal, cp. cit. USA Today, March 13, 1986. Martens, R. Joy and Sadness

in

Childran’s Sports. Champaign,

Illinois: Human Kinetics Press,

1978. 1986 Sports

Participation Survey, compiled by the National Federation of State High School Associations, 1986-1987 Handbook.

National Collegiate Athletic Association, 1987. NCAA Press Release: "Graduation Rate Higher for College Athletes than Non-Athletes," May 3, 1981. Education Week, January 14, 1987. Boston Globe, March 28, 1987. USA Today, June 5, 1985. NCAA News, February 4, 1987. Dallas Morning News, March 28, 1986. USA Today, February 13, 1986. US News and World Report, March 14, 1983. Newsweek, September 15, 1986. Dallas Morning News, March 28, 1986. Harry Edwards, "The College Athletics Arms Race," in Journal of Sport and SocialIssues, Vol. 8, no. 1, 1985. Case, Robert W. and Greer, H. Scott, "Academic Clustering in Athletics: Myth or Reality", in Arena Review, Spring 1988.

Philadelphia Enquirer, August 31, 1986a. College Athletics,"

Mark Asher, "Abuses in 18 June 1985.

a

three

part

series in the

Washington Post, 16, 17,

119 Chronicle of Higher Education, November 26, 1986. USA Today, October 15, 1966. Bridgeport Post, August 29, 1986. Ibid. Philadelphia Enquirer, August 31, 1986. Times-Picayune (New Orleans), January 12, 1986. Boston Globe, February 15, 1987. New York Times, August 3, 1986. Ibid. Ibid. American College Testing Program and the Educational Testing Service, "Athletics and Academics in the Freshmen Year: A Study of the Academic Effects of Freshmen Participation in Varsity Athletics," December 1984. 34. St. Paul Pioneer Press and Dispatch, July 12, 1985. 35. New York Times, March 3, 1985. 36. Ibid., December 8, 1985. 37. Dallas Morning News, October 17, 1986. 38. Ibid., December 3, 1986. 39. Goudge, Theodore L. and Augustin, Byron D., "An Analysis of Suspension Rates for Texas Athletes," in TEXAS COACH, March 1987. Ibid. 40. 41. Bailey v. Truby, 321 S.E.2d (W.Va. 1984) in Sports and the Courts: Physical Education and Sports Law Quarterly, Summer 1985. 42. Spring Branch I.S.D. v. Stamos, No. C-4184 (Texas, July 10, 1965). 43. United States Suprene Count (Slip op. No. 85-1232, February 24, 1986). 44. Education Week, January 14, 1987. 45. Tennesseen (Nashville), August 25, 1985. 46. Ibid. Ibid. 47. 48. Kansas City Times, April 21, 1966. 49. Time, January 30, 1984. 50. US News and World Report, November 4, 1985. 51. Ibid. 52. Dallas Morning News, Oetcber 17, 1986. 53. Ibid. December 3, 1986. 54. Ibid. 55. Ibid. 56. Ibid. 57. Ibid., October 17, 1986. 58. Ibid. 59. Goudga and Augustin, op. cit. 60. Miami Herald, February 10, 1987. 61. Capital-Journal (Topeka), February 19, 1986. 62. Education Week, January 14, 1987. 63. Los Angeles Times, November 25, 1984. 64. Ibid. 65. Ibid. 66. US News and World Report, Novenber 4, 1985. 67. Atlanta Constitution, February 8, 1987. 68. Ronald Etheridge, speech to Geogia Legislative Joint study-committee on no-pass, no-play, Septenber 15, 1986. 69. Atlanta Contstitution, Deoenber 7, 1985. 70. Ronald Etheridge, interview, April 27, 1987. 71. Memo from John A. Murphy, PGC School Superintendent, to Members of Board of Education, December 9, 1986. 72. Tom Hendershot, PGC School Board Chairman, interview, April 28, 1987. 73. Washington Post, April 14, 1986. 74. Hendarsnott, interview, op. cit. 75. Tannessean (Nashvilla), August 25, 1985. 76. Business Week, October 27, 1986.

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

120 Books Atwell, Robert H.; Grimes, Bruce; and Lopiano, Donna A. 1980. The Money Game: Financing Intercollegiate Athletics. Washington, DC: American Council of Education Ball, D.W. and J.W. Loy. Sport and Social Order. 1975. Reading, MA: Addsm Wesley Publishing Co. Inc. Benagh, J. 1976. Making It To #1. New York, Dodd, Mead and Co. Brooks, George A., 1981. Perspectives on the Academic Discipline of Physical Education. Champaign, ILL.: Human Kinetics Publishers Broyles, Frank. 1980. In The Recruiting Came. Lincoln: Nebraska University Press. Cady, Edwin. 1978. The Big Game: College Sports and American Life. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Coakley J., 1978 Sport in Society : Issues and Controversies. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby. Curry, T. and R. Jiobu, 1984. Sports: A Social Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Chalk, Ociana. 1976. Black College Sport. New York: Dodd, Mead. Denglinger, K. and L. Shapiro. 1975. Athletes For Sale. New York: Crowell Durso, J. 1975. The Sports Factory. New York: Quadrangle. Edwards, H. 1969. The Revalt of the Black Athlete. New York: Free Press. Edwards, H. 1973. Sociology of Sport. Homawood, IL: The Dorsey Press. Eitzen, D.S. and G.H. Sage, 1978. Sociology of American Sport. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown. Eitzen, S. 1984. Sport in Contemporary Society: An Anthology (2nd Edition). New York: St. Martin’s Press. S. & Figler, H. 1984. Athlete’s Game Plan for College and Career. Prirceton, New Jersey: Peterson’s Guides. Frey, J.H. 1982. The Governence of Intercollegiate Athletics. West Point, NY: Leisure Press. Hich, Paul. 1972. Rip Off The BIg Game. New York: Anchor. Hutslar, Jack. 1985. Beyond X’s and O’s. Welcome, North Carolina: Wooten Printing Company Inc., Locke, Tates and Bob Ibach, 1982. Caught in the Net. New York: Leisure Press. Martens, R. 1978. Joy and Sechess in Children’s Sports. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics Press. Pauk, Walter. 1986. Study Skills for College Athletes. Clearwater Florida: Reston-Stuart Pub. Co., Rooney, John F. , 1980. The Recruiting Game: Toward a New System of Intercollegiate Sports. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Scott, J., 1971. The Athletic Revalution. New York: Macmillian Inc. Tippette, G. , 1973. Saturday’s Children. New York: Maonillian Inc. Underwood, John, 1979. The Death of an American Game: The Crisis in Football. Boston:

Figler,

Little,

Brown and

Company.

Articles and

Manuscipts

American College Testing Program and the Educational Testing Service, "Athletics and Academies in the Freshmen Year: A Study of the Academic Effects of Freshmen Participation in Varsity Athletics," December 1984 Anrig, Gregory R. (February 2, 1983). "Testing Service Head Hits NCAA Academic Rules." Chronicle of

Higher Education. : 1-18 Asher, Mark 16,17,18 June 1985.

"Abuses in

College Athletics,"

A three

part series

in The

Washington

Post.

Bailey v. Truby, 321 S.E.2d (W.Va. 1984) in Sports and the Courts: Physical Education and Sports Law Quarterly, Summer 1985. "Big-Time College Sports: Behind Scandals." U.S. News and World Report (April, 1962): 60-61 Bostic, Don. "A Comparison of Problems of Black and White College Athletes," University of Florida, 1979. Warren C. "How Well Do Our College Athletes Fare?" Journal of Physical Education and Recreation 46 (June 1975): 25. Brennan, Thomas. "Academic Athletic Advising: The State of the Field." Syracuse University, 1979. Edwards, Harry "The College Athletics Arm Race," in Journal of Sport and Social Issues, Vol. 8, no.1, 1985 Eitzen, D. & Purdy, D.A. "The Academic Preparation and Achievement of Black and White Collegiate Athletes." Journal of Sport and Social Issues 55, 1976: 1-12 Evans, A. "Differences in the Recruitment of Black and White Football Players at a Big Eight University."Journal of Sports and Social Issues 3. (Fall/Winter 1979): 1-10 Frey, J.H. "The Oncoming Demise of Intercollegiate Athletics," Arena Review 3, (Fall/Winter 1979): 1-10 Goudge,Theocbre L. and Augustin, Byron D., "An Analysis of Suspension Rates for Texas Athletes," in Texas Coach, March 1987.

Bowlus,

121 Greer, H. Scott and Casey, Robert "Academic Clustering in Athletics: Myth

or Reality?" study conducted at Indicia University, 1987. Harris, J.C. "Academic Ability and Reported Adequacy of High School Preparation for College of Male College Freshmen Athletes and Non-Athletes in Four States," Paper presented at the National Convention of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, Detroit, Michigan, 1980. "Low Achievers Improve Reading Skills, but Top Students Lose Ground in Math, Science." National Assessment of Educational Progress 16 (Winter, 1983). National Federation of State High School Associations, 1986 Sports Participation Survey, 1986-1987

Handbook. NCAA Press Release: "Graduation Rate Higher for College Athletes than Non-Athletes"’ May 3, 1981. Purdy, D.A., Eitzen, D.S. & Hufnagel, R. Educational Attainment and Collegiate Athletes: Intra-Group Aralysis and Comparison to the General Student Population. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED202844), 1980. Sack, A. "Jan Kemp Wins One for Integrity," Journal of Sport and Social Issues, VollO (1), 1986: 3-5 Sage, George H. "American Values and Sports: Formation of Bureaucratic Personality," Journal of Physical Education and Recreation 43, (October 1978): 10-12 Spring Branch I.S.D. v. Stamos, No. C-4184 (Texas, July 10, 1985). United States Supreme Court (Slip op.No. 85-1232, February 24, 1966). Wittmer, Joe; Bostic, Don; Phillips, Terry; and Waters, Wright. "The Personal, Academic and Career Problems of College Student Athletes: Some Possible Answers. " The Personnal and Guidance Journal 60 (September, 1981): 52-55

Zingg,

P.J.

"Advising the Student Athlete."Educational Record 63 (Spring 1962):

16-19

Interviews Etheridge, Ronald, speech to Georgia Legislative joint study-committee

on

No-pass/No-play, September

15, 1986 Etheridge, Ronald, interview, April 27, 1987.

Hendersnott, Tom, interview, April 28, 1987 Richard Neal, interview, September 1984.

Neal is Executive Director of the Massachusetts

Interschalastic Athletic Association.

Newspapers A1l.PNTA CONSTITUTION. BOSTON 0 ME. BRIDGEPORT PosT. El.5DESS ’Iae