Liz,

This is a long tome coming and much overdue. AGPA of 2.5 would be even better as a 2.0 is a "D" average. I taught for 35 years and saw many abuses of student academic potential by a low GPA. Also, teachers are pressured by coaches and administration to change grades to make athletes eligible.

Liz,

This is a long tome coming and much overdue. A GPA of 2.5 would be even better as a 2.0 is a "D" average. I taught for 35 years and saw many abuses of students' academic potential by a low eligibility GPA. Also, teachers are pressured by coaches and administration to change grades to make athletes eligible.

Correction - a 2.0 is a "C" average which should be the minimum grade to be able to play a team sport in school.

Doesnt really matter - if a kid is a great athlete, teachers will give into pressure either by coaches, admin, parents or all of the above to keep kids eligible by inflating grades, giving extra credit...etc. Private schools do this all the time not to mention the fact that many of their athletes would never get accepted in to the schools based on grades alone.

I personally think it would be interesting to debate pulling athletics out of high schools and beefing up both rec and club sports. Kids would still have the outlet and chance to impress college scouts. Competitions could still become fun community events to attend. The only difference is that schools could divert funds used to support athletic programs to actual academics. High school kids could start school later in the morning and go later in the afternoon which has been suggested by numerous studies. The sad fact is that the only reason some kids attend school is to participate in sports.

I guess if that gets them into the building, its a good thing. I'm sure for some athletes, having a minimum GPA requirement might push them to work harder in class. There is evidence that kids who participate in high school sports do better in school than non-athletes so like I said, its an interesting topic for debate.

Wow, I can't believe people are more worried about whether the team will suffer because a student can not maintain a GPA of only a 2.0. Where are our standards? What is the world coming to? Why aren't we more worried about children getting a higher GPA to get into college maybe? I am really disgusted with our standards. Basically, we are saying that it is okay to have a "D" average just to have a winning team. So once high school is over and they want to get into college, what happens then? They will go into the work force wishing they had tried a little harder to succeed in life.

Wow, I can't believe people are more worried about whether the team will suffer because a student can not maintain a GPA of only a 2.0. Where are our standards? What is the world coming to? Why aren't we more worried about children getting a higher GPA to get into college maybe? I am really disgusted with our standards. Basically, we are saying that it is okay to have a "D" average just to have a winning team. So once high school is over and they want to get into college, what happens then? They will go into the work force wishing they had tried a little harder to succeed in life.

As the assistant coach of our championship-winning indoor and outdoor track team I can tell you that we cut runners twice a season. Our first cuts come early in the season if the student athlete has more than two "F's" on their progress report. Later in the season, right around championships and before tryouts for outdoor track, we cut runners again if the student fails two or more classes on their report card. It is sad to the team to lose a runner so close to states or regionals, and it is sad to see the student miss the opportunity to impress scouts. However, why bother sending the student athlete to college at all if they can't balance high school academics and athletics?