news-record.com

SPORTS

Board tightens student-athlete requirements

Article
Comments (11)

Friday, August 28, 2009

(Updated 2:14 pm)

By J. Brian Ewing
Staff Writer

GREENSBORO — The rules for playing sports at Guilford County schools got a little stricter Thursday night and, school officials hope, a little clearer.

The Board of Education approved the system’s first policy outlining requirements for participation in school sports with a 9-2 vote.

Those requirements include:

Students must provide documentation each year proving they live in the district.
A part-time residence cannot be used for athletics eligibility.
Students who are found to have lied about living in a school district to play a sport will be banned from playing sports or participating in extracurricular activities for 365 days.
The policy establishes an athletics eligibility committee to investigate cases and hear appeals.
After ninth grade, students must earn a weighted 2.0 grade-point average each semester. This rule would be phased in, and students will be required to maintain a 1.5 GPA each semester during this school year.
Summer school credit can be used to recover eligibility.

The board Thursday night debated the policy for a third time since June. The policy has been rewritten twice and put out for public comment twice as well.

Board member Amos Quick cast one of the dissenting votes (Paul Daniels cast the other), He said he did so as a protest. He said the 365-day penalty would limit the futures of some students.

“What I’m protesting is, for some students this wipes out any hopes of them pursuing any further education,” Quick said. He said parents were often to blame for providing the false information but that the students suffer.

The policy will take effect after the winter break.

The policy comes in the wake of an athletics investigation at Northern Guilford High School. That investigation, prompted by complaints from the community and within the school system, found 12 student-athletes were enrolled at the school despite living outside the school’s district.

The findings involved 10 teams and led to the resignation of the school’s principal and athletics director, the banning of the boys basketball coach and a football coach, the firing of a custodian and several hundred dollars in fines.

Contact J. Brian Ewing at 373-7351 or brian.ewing@news-record.com

Accompanying Photos

Margaret Baxter (News & Record)

SCHOOL BOARD INSIDER

The Guilford County Board of Education made several decisions Thursday night:

BUDGET

Rolled back more than $1.34 million in budget cuts. Those rollbacks included budgeting $1.1 million for 20 additional teachers and returning $55,200 to pay for PSAT exams for 10th-grade students.

The budget also included adding more than $187,000 to help pay for Advanced Placement course exams. The board originally approved about $150,000 for the line item but Sharon Ozment, the school system’s chief financial officer, told the board the amount was miscalculated.

SCHOOL NAME

Tabled a vote to rename Madison Elementary, which is named after the Madison Township, for Dolley Madison.

The wife of President James Madison, Dolley Madison was a Guilford County native.

Several board members expressed concerns about naming the school after Madison, or jointly naming it after the two of them because both owned slaves.

The assertion sparked a tense, though brief, debate among board members Paul Daniels, Amos Quick and Deena Hayes, an occurrence that is becoming common in meetings when issues tied to race are discussed.

PRIMM HONORED

Gave initial approval to naming the new gym at Northeast High after the school’s longtime athletics director and history teacher, John Primm. The public will have 30 days to comment.

CONNECT

Got a news tip? Contact staff writer J. Brian Ewing at 373-7351 or brian.ewing@news-record.com. Get more education news online at The Chalkboard blog at news-record.com/blog/chalkboard

Comments

View Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

NewChanges

August 28, 2009 - 8:36 am EDT

These changes are not bad. When I played ball in another state it was required that students have a 2.0 to be eligible for any sports. I think that puts the focus back on academics. However I disagree with the banning of the student for 365 days. If it is the parents fault, the child shouldnt be punished. So they didnt pass the transfer rule?

TOTHE POINT

August 28, 2009 - 9:51 am EDT

I think this is a good move by the GSC, however, this may be just a personal feeling that I have but I am really getting sick of hearing parents and others say that it is for the kids. I believe the kids should share in the punishment as well and I disagree with the board member who said that the kids will suffer because they will not have a chance to further their education. Now here is why I feel this way. Unlike my child hood which took place in the 50's and 60's kids today know more and are doing more and are involved in more things than we were ever involved in and we keep treating them like children. These kids are having sex, drinking and smoking more than any generation before them and they are aware of the ramifications. Those athletes who whose parents were found guilty for fabricating their address of residence knew exactly what was going on and were equally complicit in the fact. Kids today are not dumb and know more than those of us who are making these daily post ever knew at their age. So stop shielding them and let them grow up and take their lumbs because they knew what was going on and all the players on those teams that were caught knew the full story and also knew who was living where and for how long, so for them to play innocent is rediculous. These kids on these teams also know which coaches are cheating and which coaches are playing by the book. So stop treating these kids of today like they still have diapers on - they don't and trust me they know they don't. It is time to look these kids in the eyes and let this be a teachable moment for them. In closing, I am sure there is not a elementary or secondary teacher out there who would not say that the kids today are harder to manage then the kids were when they were in school. Why, because these kids know the law better than the law does and they know what they can get away with and what they can not - now that is not the sign of a kid still in diapers. So saying it is for the kids ..... give me a break! Parents need to grow up.

DaveW

August 28, 2009 - 10:41 am EDT

I am glad they changed it to a weighted 2.0. That way more athletes will be encouraged to take honors classes.

dcolin

August 28, 2009 - 1:56 pm EDT

Thats ridiculous.

What are honors classes when all can take them.

It's absurd

NewChanges

August 28, 2009 - 2:05 pm EDT

I dont think its absurd. All can take honors or AP classes. Its the ones who likes to be challenged that do. I encourage all students who dont have learning disabilities to at least try it in one course. They would be surprised of what they can do when challenged. My child took honor classes for the first time as a Junior. My child was excited about finally being challenged he/she is now taking AP courses as a senior. It does help their gpa, as it should. They require more work than the standard cp classes. Good comment Dave

dcolin

August 28, 2009 - 8:15 pm EDT

Northern only had honors classes.
So they could weight the GPA.

The Euphamisims are amazing.

College Prep Algebra II
Honors Algebra. II

The state sets the same standard for both.

Same EOC test.

Oh trust me MIT wont accept AP calculus with a 3

Paul Daniels

August 28, 2009 - 12:08 pm EDT

For those who are interested or question why I voted against the policy, I did so because I believe that requiring freshmen to have only a 1.5 gpa (roughly a D+ average) to participate in sports, is too low of a standard. If we really are about education first, and dedicated to academic excellence, it is inconsistent to allow students who barely scrape by academically to participate in sports. I conveyed my sentiments to my colleagues at the hearing and then voted consistent with these sentiments. I believe that a 2.0 gpa strikes the proper balance.

By the way, I am on the governance committee and help draft the policy. I believe that with the exception of the 1.5 gpa requirement it is a pretty good policy. I think that we are way ahead of where we were at the end of last year when it comes to setting clear standards that will be uniformly applied.

Paul Daniels

baseballcoach

August 28, 2009 - 12:46 pm EDT

can't say i disagree with your feelings on the requirements of freshmen. if you cannot earn at least a 2.0 in 8th grade (middle school), you most likely need to spend the first semester of your freshman year hitting the books instead of concentrating on sports. heck, that may be why you did not obtain the 2.0 to start with. as i coach, i have always felt the academic requirements for participation in school sports were much too low. as a parent, no way would one of my children be allowed to participate in a sport if the best he or she could do was 1.5, or even 2.0 for that matter. in the future, i would like to see the 2.0 raised. after all, they are supposed to be student-athletes, and one does not have to be very studious to obtain 2.0 in high school. participation in a school sport should be considered a priviledge and not a right. priviledges are earned. for those that refuse to cut it in the classroom, let them do all the Club, AAU, Showcase, etc sports and leave the high school sports to true student-athletes.

DaveW

August 28, 2009 - 1:30 pm EDT

Paul
Glad you made your post and are concerned enough to do so.
I think you all are on the right track to improve fairness in athletics in GCS.
I ONLY want to coach kids from my school district but at the same time I do not want to coach against some kid that lives in my school district.That kid should be on my team. Thank you for making an effort to stop recruiting and parents wrongly shopping their kids.

NewChanges

August 28, 2009 - 2:09 pm EDT

I think it should be a 2.0 across the board. Playing devils advocate, I can see why they would lower it for freshman. High school is a whole different ball game. It does take some to get use to the high school life and get adjusted. But setting the standards at a 2.0 is only average. If incoming freshman cant do average, then I agree that sports needs to be the last thing on their mind.

TOTHE POINT

August 28, 2009 - 12:52 pm EDT

Mr. Daniels, I totally agree with you that a 1.5 is very low if we are indeed seeking to promote an academic environment within athletics. In some cases you can get that just by signing your name on a test paper or just showing up. I would like to see the cut off at 2.0 or even progress higher as the student raises to the next grade. My earlier comments were not directed towards you they were directed at your counterpart who also voted against the measure. His comment about the kids being hurt by the measure just did not sit right with me. It is my feeling that the athlete (or student) are not that innocent and needed to be held accountable for complicity in those actions as well.