<p>3togo,
I laughed at your post because people have dropped the O-word around my daughter too. If she were truly Olympic quality, she'd be running about 2 min. faster on a 5K right now in high school! Parents who are well-informed about what's out there nationally can really help guide our children toward talent-appropriate avenues. I feel so bad for the kids who've been misled into believing they're something special when they're not. And moving back a little closer to the original post, how this problem can manifest itself is that kids and parents spend huge amounts of time and money on sports because they believe it will "pay off" in the end. As most of us seem to agree, that can be OK if a sport is the child's real interest (and the parents can afford it). But when kids deliberately neglect studies in the mistaken belief they're setting themselves up to play Div. I someday and they're not even close to being good enough, it's a tragedy. I've seen even elementary school parents request less homework for their kids because they're too busy with travel soccer or whatever.</p>
<p>What happened to the girl Doubleplay is referencing need not have. Most kids who are vying for spots at elite conservatories have been to summer programs, competitions, master classes, pre-college programs. In fact, many of the kids recognize each other, because they keep showing up at the same things! They have also had lessons with college professors, who have assessed their talent. </p>
<p>I feel really sorry for a kid who goes to a college audition, not realizing the level of play, the kind of repertoire required. Being the best kid in the school orchestra might mean nothing at the college level.</p>
<p>It behooves kids and parents to have done their homework in advance, so that they don't end up in this position.</p>
<p>I think the same is true for sports. It really makes sense to have objective people look at the student, and assess the level of talent, and likelihood of "making it" at the college level.</p>
<p>And finally, Cur is right. There are spots for musicians, actors and athletes at most colleges. But there is a big difference between D1 sports and Juilliard, and intramurals and most college music programs.</p>
<p>There are just SO many variables. Some college coaches (with respect to runners, as an example) would rather see a kid with slightly weaker times who is NOT running really high mileage. Some kids tap out in high school, others have lots of room to improve as they adjust to the higher level of mileage run by college athletes. Other coaches want a high mileage high schooler because there is less chance of injury as the mileage steps up. Some coaches run their runners into the ground in college, others let them develop over the 4 years. A kid who might not be attractive at all to Arkansas or Colorado might be just what Dartmouth or Princeton is looking for. This is where the kid has to decide whether to go run at a "better running school" or to go for the stronger academic environment and use his or her running to help gain admission. The kid can still run and pursue that passion- whether it be at a D1 powerhouse or at Emory or the like. </p>
<p>I think there are thousands of disappointed musicians whose families are sure they are headed for Julliard. My daughter went to many, many auditions (out of Interlochen) and saw anxious parents listening through the crack in the door of the audtion room. The Interlochen kids had a HUGE advantage )and other kids often commented on it)- because they had a much better feel for where they stood.</p>
<p>Another thing to keep in mind when criticizing the apparently "sports obsessed" parents is that many times families do, in fact, object to the level of commitment being demanded of them, but there is no other choice if their child wants to play. Our local soccer leagues, for example, have 2-3 practices a week and games every Saturday, even for the very young participant. The coaches "guilt" the families into never missing for fear of letting down the team or being penalized by not getting to play. There is no other soccer league option, except perhaps in a neighboring city (and that would eat up more family time with the drive). I think parents need to revolt against this mentality, but it seems most are afraid of looking uncommitted. Too bad.</p>
<p>I am so grateful for the pure joy my kids received by playing h.s. sports and dabbling in the music dept. IMO, the reason public schools offer these activities is so kids will experience 'life lessons' from participating in these activities and learn to appreciate the merits of those activities. Very few participants reach stardom, but all can benefit richly from the experience. I'm reminded of the NCAA commercial~often played during college games~the vast majority of us will 'star' in another capacity of life rather than in our chosen sport!</p>
<p>You're right, bay. In our town, the recreational soccer program for the elementary school age group used to involve one night of practice and one game on a Sat. This was sufficient for the dabbler or unathletic. Then someone decided that the youth rec. program should look more like the travel program, and now they've added an additional 1-2 nights of training with a professional soccer trainer each week. Some coaches are laid back about attendance at the training sesssions, but others fully expect the kids to be there. Soon, there will be no program for the casual player.</p>
<p>Having said that though, we need to remember how lucky we are in the US that our children have such a smorgasbord of opportunities. To complain is very spoiled! I think it's especially wonderful when there are a variety of commitment levels available for a particular activity. To me it's awful when a child is excluded from trying a new hobby or sport merely because he doesn't want to commit every waking minute to it. Unfortunately, this is how things are heading for some of us who live in competitive areas.</p>
<p>"Our local soccer leagues, for example, have 2-3 practices a week and games every Saturday, even for the very young participant. The coaches "guilt" the families into never missing for fear of letting down the team or being penalized by not getting to play."</p>
<p>Having ran a program I need to take exception to your statements. I think you're off base a bit.</p>
<p>First, how many of your schools offer PE everyday? please don't say recess as schools now take a couple of tens and 30 for lunch. Most elementaries have a PE specialist that visits five schools a week so your kid gets one hour a week extended exercise at school. If your child is lucky their teacher might also try to fit in "fitness friday" or something where some additional time is given for exercise.</p>
<p>Our youth teams did practice two times a week at a max of an hour and a half. So you are finding fault with 3 hours a week plus a game? I'm sorry when I look around I see our young people working as hard as they can to reverse the mortality tables. If we don't get them exercising as children all we are doing is bringing older age illness (hbp, diatbetes) to our children. Please don't take exception and fire back with what "your" kids do. Instead, look around, look at other kids. You'll understand my point. </p>
<p>For our program at the K-5 level 70% of all elementary students were playing soccer in our program. We were providing the physical education for our school system for the most part for half the school year. </p>
<p>At the youth levels we had a 50% play requirement, except in situations of behavor problems or skipping practices. I fielded alot of calls over the years and often the parents who complained the most, had the least commitment, yet still wanted everything to be "equal". You can't skip practices all week and expect to start, yet some parents felt their kids should. </p>
<p>It should be understood that when you join a team sport that is a progressive education (skill, knowledge building) sport that missing alot of time isn't a good thing. </p>
<p>But really if a couple hours a couple evenings a week are too much for "you", then don't put your child in it. It is a rare day you'll run across a kid who didn't really want to play. If there was a practice problem it was usually a parent generated problem of their time, not the kids time.</p>
<p>xoxoxoxoxo</p>
<p>Somehow this turned into a nice civil discussion - thanks all.</p>
<p>Yikes, Opie, trust me I didn't mean to judge anyone's soccer program! I'm the parent of a Division 1 athlete and a fitness fanatic. I LOVE it when my kids get exercise!</p>
<p>I was just trying to make the point, (and apparently I didn't do a very good job of it), that sometimes what looks to others as "sports obsessed" parents are just parents following the community standards so that their child can participate. Sorry if I offended you. I am actually very grateful for all the sports programs available to my kids and have taken advantage of probablly more than most.</p>
<p>So in other words, Opie, we need to demand that more time is spent in PE in our schools!! Instead, in many place, we go in the opposite direction and require more English, math, science, etc and take away money, resources, and time away from PE. And we wonder why America has an obesity problem????</p>
<p>I am only on post #60, but had to budge in.
A couple of years ago we were organizing a "math night" at hs (private, competitive) and elementary/middle school parents were also invited. The purpose was to discuss math education, promoting math team and generally
explain to parents about all the different math "tracks" available. A total of 8 (eight) parents/families showed up.
Two weeks later I attended a meeting at a middle school, where only middle school parents were invited. The purpose - organizing a new, competitive basketball team. The attendance - 49 parents/families.
Draw your own conclusions.</p>
<p>I know that seeing kids grow up in an area that was a bit over the top sports wise, there was a fair amount of parental disdain toward families just playing for the fun of it and kids not seeking college & pro sports (mind you an inordinately large group of Ds peers from that town are playing at colleges or have been drafted for pro sports, so it worked for many and there were some phenomenal athletes there)</p>
<p>Having finished schooling my kids in an area not so intense, more about every one should play something, at their level, so a star team and lower level teams, too, I am convinced it is a healthier perspective and we know a few Olympians from that area, too, though not quite so much football/basketball/volleyball prestige and more variety in sports. </p>
<p>This worked really well for my outstanding athlete who turned out to be too short for bball, vball, etc and was able to try alternate sports and find a niche where she still played at the jr. national level and plays for her uni and is a shortie in sports terms! </p>
<p>I am not sure what coaches would have done with her in the old area- seen the size or the athleticism? Nor would she have had the opportunity to be a 3 sport varsity athlete who ended up trying 7 different sports in HS, just because you tried one in a lower grade did not mean you could not try another the next year- at our old school that would not happen, you had to pick one sport, play year round and probably give up band/choir/etc</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am only on post #60, but had to budge in.
A couple of years ago we were organizing a "math night" at hs (private, competitive) and elementary/middle school parents were also invited. The purpose was to discuss math education, promoting math team and generally
explain to parents about all the different math "tracks" available. A total of 8 (eight) parents/families showed up.
Two weeks later I attended a meeting at a middle school, where only middle school parents were invited. The purpose - organizing a new, competitive basketball team. The attendance - 49 parents/families.
Draw your own conclusions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A lot of the families of the basketball crowd are going to be disappointed when junior doesn't make the team. LOL</p>
<p>
[quote]
So in other words, Opie, we need to demand that more time is spent in PE in our schools!! Instead, in many place, we go in the opposite direction and require more English, math, science, etc and take away money, resources, and time away from PE. And we wonder why America has an obesity problem????
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I disagree.</p>
<p>Are you seriously advocating turning our kids into mindless jocks instead of intellectual beings? How is knowing how to play sports going to help them get into college?</p>
<p>America has an obesity problem because we are lazy. The PE program is fine the way it is-but regardless of how much time we spend in PE, unless we take health courses and learn what kind of food to put in our bodies, we'll have problems with obesity.</p>
<p>"So in other words, Opie, we need to demand that more time is spent in PE in our schools!! "</p>
<p>I agree with you a million percent!!! </p>
<p>Waaay back in the day we had two 30 minute recess periods and an hour for lunch and physical fitness (presidents test). Getting a chance to go outside and play and get alittle bit tired, meant I came back in and paid attiention. To expect kids to sit and learn without real breaks is folly. </p>
<p>Nowdays we treat children the same way an employer gives a smoke break and half lunch. I would love to see an hour added into the day (make it un interrupted planning time for educators, few, if any complaints) for fitness. Kids go home, plop down infront of the tv or computer and eat. </p>
<p>The other aspect of limited recess and lunch time is we are sucking away play time, leaving only team sports for exercise for most kids. So in some ways I agree with Bay, about team sports but we have to look at why they are so dominant with kids.. could it be we have forced it that way? I did study our program's impact on the school system. We were replacing pe through the week. k-5 70% participation.. but what about the other 30%? Sure some of those kids played or did other things, but not all of them. So how do those 15-20% get exercise through the week? they don't. That is why around 4th and 5th grades kids who are overweight or slight or can't run 10 yards without being winded. It doesn't get better for them either as they grow older. HS now has a pe class that consists of "walking for fitness" and kids struggle with that...</p>
<p>PE/Recess time loses out because it isn't deemed "intellectual enough" by the stuffed shirts and blouses in our government. "How can we raise test scores?" is the common call.. more of everything, but fun. </p>
<p>There are times where I feel we are killing our kids with our "intellect".
There's alot to be said for having fun, breaking a sweat and getting dirty. </p>
<p>Bay no worries.</p>
<p>
[quote]
America has an obesity problem because we are lazy. The PE program is fine the way it is-but regardless of how much time we spend in PE, unless we take health courses and learn what kind of food to put in our bodies, we'll have problems with obesity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If we eliminate the PE program, it won't matter what food we put in our bodies!! We'll still be putting more calories in than we are burning.</p>
<p>I'm not advocating playing sports nonstop in PE. In fact, you'll see me at the complete opposite end of the spectrum in that we should do more fitness-related stuff than sport activities.</p>
<p>And yes, I AM advocating against being a bookworm.</p>
<p>"Are you seriously advocating turning our kids into mindless jocks instead of intellectual beings"</p>
<p>REALLY? You get that far from the comment? Really? How sad for you that you can only see it that way. I was going to jump all over you, but instead I kinda feel pity for you. </p>
<p>I guess I have to tell my son to quit med school because he plays rugby now... :) because it is NOT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A HEALTHY BODY AND MIND. </p>
<p>He couldn't possibly be smart enough to practice medicine and play rugby. I guess I should call the orthopedic surgeon who repaired his ankle so well a and demand his license to practice medicine revoked because he too played rugby all the way through med school and beyond.</p>
<p>I GUESS GOD ONLY ALLOWS ONE, NOT BOTH. ;) At least your's mine's very cool with it.</p>
<p>When did I say to eliminate PE?</p>
<p>I think it's great to have PE. I'm just saying that you can't rely on that alone. And I'll be the first to tell you that PE needs revision, because if anything doing PE in middle school made me hate sports and be completely anti-PE, to the point where I never even wanted to go to school. I agree with you that it's no longer "physical education" and just "run around and play sports for an hour". And that is what bothers me.</p>
<p>Playing golf in HS for me was great...I lost at least 11 pounds per season (we were not allowed to drive golf karts and we had to carry our own bags), I made great friends, and it was a great confidence-builder to find that maybe I wasn't as athletically challenged as I though (I now engage in way more sporty activities than I did in Middle School).</p>
<p>Let me re-state. The PE system needs to be revised, but I don't know if we're thinking of revision the same way.</p>
<p>Opie, that wasn't what I meant at all. I know several people who do both, I'm sorry you took it that way. :( I really didn't mean to imply that, and again, I'm sorry.</p>
<p>I'm putting myself on strict lockdown here but do want to venture to say that there are some kids who do not play on sports teams who are nonetheless quite fit. Some dance, some climb mountains, some bike, some just eat really well and do yoga. The competitive playing field - uniforms - cheerleading - pep band - scene is just not a comfortable zone for some kids. Not saying better kids, mind you. Just different.</p>
<p>High school PE, at least here in the town I live in, bears no resemblance whatever to what I suffered through decades ago. There are many choices, from weight training to aerobics to fitness walking (for those who start high school in pretty bad shape), team sports instruction, etc. Both my son (now graduated) and my daughter (now a 10th grader) very much enjoy the weight training classes and those classes have inspired them to continue their regimen even when school is not in session.</p>
<p>So, I think the idea of how to run PE classes has improved a lot in recent years, but the improvement is not universal. PE in our middle schools and junior highs still stinks.</p>
<p>I wouldn't even object to increasing the requirement for high schoolers, and that is coming from a non-athlete who very much values bookish pursuits.</p>