news-record.com

Of course it matters to the schools that were getting their players poached. I wish the NCHSAA would send Northern's fine money to the athletic programs of the schools from which they illegally took athletes.

Dave, I looked up these studies.

The only information available on them is on the NCHASAA website, which is not reliable for evaluating the validity of the studies themselves. The Overton study is a doctoral dissertation, and the article doesn't say if the dissertation was accepted or not. If his doctoral committee did not accept his dissertation, then the study is clearly not valid. The Whitney study doesn't say where it was published, ie in what journal, so that I can look it up on EBSCO Host or some other source to read the original. It also doesn't say if the Whitney study is peer reviewed, meaning experts in the author's field have reviewed the methodology of the study and reported it valid.

Basically, both the blurbs on these studies are "yeah sports, we're great" articles. I'm not saying the studies are invalid, but without access it is impossible to tell. However, from the media reports on the studies, I do see flaws.

The Overton study is a qualitative study, not a quantitative study, according to the media article. Qualitative studies are based on things like interviews, use less hard data, and are more subject to researcher bias. Their design evolves over time, and is subject to the bias of the author. They tend to be subjective, because they are focused on "qualities". For example, evaluating athletes vs non athletes is studying the qualities of each. However, qualitative studies can be useful as a starting point for quantitative research later on. They can expain findings of quantitative studies whose results are not clear. They are typically used in the social sciences. But they are generally considered weaker compared to quantitative studies.

Quantitative studies are "just the facts, ma'am." The research has a specific question he wants answered when he starts, and if done properly the answer may be yes or no depending on where the data actually takes him. Quantitative studies are objective and less prone to researcher bias. They rely on the quantity of data: how many? How much? What changes over a specified time framework? Quantitative studies are used to test hypotheses. These rely on the numbers, and the numbers alone. They are most used by physical and mathematical sciences, but they can be used in physical disciplines that contain social elements such as medicine and nursing.

There are some other weaknesses I can spot without having to read these studies. First of all, the data used is 15 years old. It is not current data, and does not reflect athletics as they stand currently today. The study should have used data no more than 5 years old at the time the study was done. The media article does not say when these studies were done. If they were done in the 90's, around the time the data was collected, they may have had some validity at that time. But scientific research is considered old after 5 years. In that case, these studies would have to be redone.

Another problem is that these two researchers seem to be using the exact same data. This raises a huge question of bias, since the studies seem to have been done at about the same time and reached the same conclusions. I would have to actually read the studies to be sure, but it is a question I would want answered.

Another problem is the studies only measure performance while in the school system. There is no long term study of what happens to the participants in either the athletic or the non-athletic students after graduation. Also, problems with how the school system teaches (in other words, its overall performance as a school system) is not addressed. The study does not include all NC high school students, which Dr. Whitney admits is a limitation in his study.

Finally, the media article only says there are differences between athletes and non-athletes. It does not tell us what those differences mean. The studies claim athletes have a better GPA, and even the athletes mean GPA is not very remarkable at 2.86 (a C+ average). If being an athlete has such an impact on academic performance, why isn't the mean GPA much higher? How do the GPA's range from one school to the next? How do the authors account for differences within the academic performance of non-athletes, ie gifted vs non-gifted? Are special ed students who are mainstreamed included in the non-athletic GPA?

Too many unanswered questions. I would like to find copies of these studies and read them, to see if some of those questions are answered.

But based on the media articles I find nothing in these studies that proves that athletes perform better academically than non-athletes. Or worse. The question is unanswered as far as these studies go.

I do not consider either of these studies to be a valid support of your arguments.

And nothing is forever. When I see the unrepentant attitude of that mother, and see a rising tide of public annoyance at the antics of athletes of all stripes who don't think rules apply to them, I see a backlash coming. Rather than say, "athletics are here to stay," you would do well to come up with stronger reasons for them to stay. IIRC, you would be such a person to do so, since aren't you in education yourself?

"Extreme Wacko".

Get off it.

He has an opinion.
He is not a wacko.

Tone it down
You claim to be an educator,
Act like one