<p>As others have stated, the competition to make the team is going to vary widely from school to school.</p>
<p>This idea ^, that we need to make accommodation for first-time participants, seems to be advocating for <em>more</em> athletics in high school, not less. If the current competitive teams can easily be filled, then there must already be plenty of students who have skills in the sport.</p>
<p>Adding more levels would be great (imo, because I think everyone ought to play on an athletic team in high school), but it will come down to funding and space issues. I’m sure if enough first-timers could come up with the method of funding for more coaches, and figure out field/court time, no one would object to adding on. Otherwise, it seems you would be advocating for taking more $$ away from academics for more coaches, or watering down the competitiveness of the varsity team, neither of which will serve anyone very well.</p>
<p>Well, as I said, I have mixed feelings on this. I can understand how a parent could feel upset that her un-athletic child doesn’t get to play on the school soccer team, despite paying the same taxes as the parent whose student has some natural sports talent and does get to play. For academics at least, every student has access to English class no matter what his/her natural intellectual level is or his/her reading comprehension and writing ability. </p>
<p>And no, I am not a fan of mediocrity and don’t want any money spent on teams of unmotivated kids. However, for some sports and at some big schools, the competition for roster spots has gotten out of hand such that now your kid needs to have spent years of their lives and thousands of dollars getting prepared to make a public high school team. This means that certain aspects of the public education offered are no longer free.</p>
<p>I can too. Sports have been a positive experience for my kids but it’s a bit of a balancing act. There are times when I look around at other parents in the bleachers and wonder if we’re here for the kids or the parents…I will say I know more than a few kids whose overzealous parents put them on competitive teams from 3rd grade on, who played their sport year round, and by high school they were just sick of it and quit.</p>
<p>Sports are very accessible here from a young age.</p>
<p>Rec sports are offered to kids as young as 3. The fee is minimal (and waivable if needed) because the program is supported by a tax levy and coaches are volunteers. No experience is required and no one is cut. As kids get a bit older there are travel teams which do involve tryouts and cuts, and somewhat more expense. Of course there are clubs and leagues that aren’t affiliated with our specific community as well.</p>
<p>Most school sports begin in 7th grade, a few in 9th. My D had never played volleyball or lacrosse in her life (tho she did basketball and soccer as rec sports) and made both teams as a 7th grader. There were cuts in vball that year which I thought was kind of dumb at that age. </p>
<p>In our area Catholic schools begin competitive vball very early, in elementary school. Making those high school teams is very hard. </p>
<p>The high school requires gym (though this can be waived with 2 sports in a year), and offers a lot of no-cut sports - cross country, track, indoor/winter track, swimming. Also bowling and tennis and golf. There aren’t any intramural sports, though. I look forward to my D enjoying those, or club sports, in college.</p>
<p>Living here in this setting has been very different from my own experience. I grew up in NYC and do not recall being offered Little League or anything else as a kid…we played stickball and running bases and handball and that was about it. In high school we had a very few sports available (tiny private school). My kids have had a completely different experience.</p>
<p>You say, “no longer” free, but hasn’t it always been this way? Hasn’t the volleyball team always been limited to X number of players, or was there a time when all say, 60 kids who wanted to play could be on the team?</p>
<p>As a said in an earlier post, I don’t think the demand for spots used to be as great as it is now. In the past, it seems to me that almost everyone who wanted to be on the team could be. Now with population growth, huge regional high schools with 3000+ students, and the greater emphasis on EC involvement as a requirement for college admissions means that far more kids than before are left out that want to participate in team sports. Add to that the cost of athletics to taxpayers, and I can understand why some people think there’s a problem.</p>
<p>Where I grew up, far more students had after school jobs than they do now. Different economy.</p>
<p>OHMomof2, we have reasonably priced recreation leagues in town too. But no one is making the high school varsity soccer or basketball teams with just rec. league experience.</p>
<p>Here, rec ends after 6th grade and middle school sports begin. I’d say it’s rare for a rec league player not to make the 7th grade team (and then go on to 8th, HS frosh, JV, varsity).</p>
<p>Indeed in some sports, to make varsity or get a lot of playing time you’re going to need more than rec experience. Fw of our varsity volleyball players don’t also play club ball in winter or spring or both, a few do that plus sand in summer. A handful play a school spring sport and still make varsity, though.</p>
<p>GFG, I understand not wanting to water down the experience and not letting lazy kids claim xc as a resume item. The coach guards against that by having strict rules about practice attendance and participation. I shouldn’t have said xc was no cuts. Coach will cut a kid who doesn’t show up and doesn’t work. She is just generous about keeping the hard working but slow kids.</p>
<p>It is a constant struggle for her to reach both the talented kids, the State bound, likely to receive athletic scholarship types, as well as the kids who can’t run three miles about walking when they first show up. I admire her ability to meet both groups’ needs. I suspect part of what keeps her going is seeing the transformation in those newbies. </p>
<p>I don’t have first hand experience with high school football, but hear it is the same. A kid who shows up every day and works hard is on the team. He may not play, but he will dress out and enjoy the perks of team membership, the letter jackets and special shirts and team meals.</p>
<p>I’d think all sports/coaches do this. Missing practices (unless excused) or having a bad attitude are absolutely reason to be removed from the team. </p>
<p>Also, in our local high school all athletes must sign an illegal drug/alcohol/tobacco pledge and agree that they’re ineligible to play if they violate it (in season or out). Students who are in music groups or academic clubs do not have to sign this pledge. I know many athletes who make the decision not to drink or do drugs because it can jeopardize their ability to play.</p>
<p>I always thought it was odd that athletes would be singled out for this.</p>
<p>As I described earlier in this thread, the funding for sports is going to vary widely from school to school. </p>
<p>At our high school, mock trial, NHS, Jazz Band, drum line, theater productions, and school newspaper staff, just to name a few, are all limited to those who make the cut. All of those activities are paid for directly by taxpayer funds. On the other hand, the vast majority of funding for our sports teams comes from the players themselves and from booster club funds, not from the taxpayers.</p>
<p>I attended a fairly large HS (over 2000 students). The competition to make a team (early 70’s, boys sports only) was brutal. Much easier in the HS’s my kids attend/attended.</p>