A Message From the Executive Director …

Click to view index of columns

As February begins, all 392 member high schools have now experienced at least one grading period under the new academic eligibility rule, which requires any student receiving a failing grade to serve a period of ineligibility.  Some schools have block schedules, which means they first experienced the impact of the new rule after nine weeks.  Some schools have trimesters, which mean they experienced the first impact of the rule after 12 weeks.  Finally, those with semesters were first impacted as the school year passed the 18-week mark. 

 It was an interesting month in our office as a result.  In the past, I would estimate less than five percent of January correspondence, email and phone calls related to academic eligibility questions.  This January, easily 90 percent of that same correspondence, email and phone calling dealt with academic eligibility.

 The last month has made me think back to the origins of the out-of-season contact rules, when coaches were allowed 10 days of contact in the summertime with their students.  We were flooded with interpretation requests for several months.   It was clear from those questions that the 10-day out-of-season contact rule, while not without merit, was practically unenforceable.  As a result, the rule was quickly modified.  At the end of the day, the definition of a “bad rule” sometimes has nothing to do with the intent or motivation for the rule.  But, it can be defined as one that cannot be practically implemented, policed or applied even-handedly.  Do we have a bad rule?

 Like the out-of-season contact rule, however, the core motivation and intent of the academic eligibility change is admirable, and indisputable.  We should be making every attempt to raise the bar in all aspects of education.  Whether core graduation requirements, course rigor, or just general expectations, it is hard to dispute the no pass, no play philosophy as one area where the bar can be raised.  Students participating in interscholastic athletics are held to a higher standard of conduct off the court than the general student population through “good conduct rules”.  It seems reasonable students participating in interscholastic athletics should be expected to perform academically at a higher level than the general student population as well.  After all, participation in activities is a privilege, not a right.  This is just as true legally as it is conceptually.

However, it is quickly becoming apparent the rule – whose intent is to raise the level of performance in the classroom – may instead have some unintended and undesired effects.  These are actual scenarios that have been used as examples by parents and school administrators.

1. An A-B student fell behind early in geometry and never caught up.  The student ended up failing that class.  Rather than retake it, the student said he didn’t want to risk another F, and instead would take basic math classes.

2. A post-secondary enrollment.  In her school, 70 percent is considered a C-.  She earned 70 percent in her college class, but the college considers that to be a failing percentage.  As a result, she received an F, and is done attempting any advanced course work through post-secondary enrollment.

3. A 4.0 student decided to expand her horizons and took a non-required art class.  She didn’t have much success with pottery clay, though, and received an F.  The class wasn’t required to graduate.  The student is now ineligible, and she and her peers are not likely to “expand their horizons” in the classroom again.

These scenarios don’t make the rule, or its intent, bad.  But, if the rule motivates students toward less rigor, less challenge and less development, there is cause for concern.

While the basic rule causes these concerns, the real trouble with the rule is the enforcement.  Remember the definition of a bad rule – impractical to implement, police or enforce in an even-handed manner.

Implementation - These scenarios are among many that have arisen which do not make implementation of the rule seem practical.

1. A student is a volleyball player or football player only.  She/he fails at the end of 1st semester.  Then, she/he turns it around and earns a 4.0 GPA in semester two.  The student is ineligible for 20 schools days in the fall because of the 1st semester F.   The 2nd semester 4.0 means nothing.  In fact, the student could have earned a 0.0 GPA with all Fs in the 2nd semester and missed the same amount of time in the fall sports.  Where is the 2nd semester motivation?

2. A sophomore student who has played volleyball only in the past received an F during this past fall semester.  She decides she now wants to run track.  She is fully eligible to compete immediately in track, but must serve 20 school days next fall, once volleyball starts, because she wasn’t “bona-fide” in track.

Policing – Each school is responsible for policing the rule locally.  The bona-fide sport aspect of the rule complicates this.  Every school administrator I’ve spoken with indicates they are spending a disproportionate amount of time tracking the ineligibility imposed by this rule. 

1. School A has 20 athletic participants who failed at semester.  5 are currently playing basketball, and their 20 days will be tracked.  6 run track, so their 20 days begins at the start of track season – which is Feb. 12 to accommodate indoor track – but since School A doesn’t have indoor track, they are enforcing the 20 days beginning with the first outdoor meet in late March.  Of those 11, 5 play softball, along with five of the nine who have not already served their 20 days.  So, some 1st semester F students are sitting out for the first time, some have already served their time and can play softball right away.  The last four students????  Their 20 days doesn’t start until their fall sport rolls around.  Oh, by the way, 7 of those 20 received an F second semester.  (Don’t forget, the block schools get to do this twice as often as the semester schools.)

The bona-fide participant aspect of this rule is showing itself to be virtually impossible to police locally.

Even-handed application.  The core basic tenet of any eligibility rule should be that every student at every school at every time is subject to the same rule, and the same jeopardy.  This is athletics, after all.  While life may not treat everyone even-handedly, the playing rules of our games are meant to do just that, the transfer rules, open enrollment rules, etc. are meant to do just that.

1. A student at a block scheduling school is subjected to the rule and its penalty four times, with the potential for 80 days of academic ineligibility.  The student at the trimester school is subject to 60 days, and the semester student has 40 potential annual school days of ineligibility.  Every student must be consistently subject to the same rule and same jeopardy regardless of the grading-period philosophy her school utilizes.

2. The same A-B student I spoke about above who failed geometry will be sitting out 10 soccer games this spring as a result of the penalty.  Last month, a 16-year old teammate of his was arrested for drinking.  That teammate will miss three games.  This is understandably hard to reconcile for the student and family involved.  After all, what is the more severe offense?  Ultimately, the A-B student has indicated he will likely drop from the school soccer team and play solely for his club team, where grades are of no consequence.

The intent of the new academic eligibility standard isn’t to drive students from activities, but rather to provide incentive for those same students to strive higher.

What’s next?  This is the $1 million question.  The stories I’ve related above are all factual, but don’t in and of themselves tell the entire story.  Bill Watson, Athletic Director at Urbandale High School is gathering data from all schools to provide the State Department of Education to give to members of the State Board of Education.  Not only is current data important when used in comparison to last year, data from the end of the school year showing changes through the current year are vital for use by the State Board of Education when determining if any changes to the rule are necessary, and if so, just what those changes are.

What are the alternatives?  Hopefully, the data will offer insight as to potential alternatives.  The Iowa High School Speech Association has developed one model that eliminates many of the penalty phase issues.  Once an F is given, the student is ineligible for the next 30 school days.  If they miss activities during that time, then so be it.  If their activities fall outside of that window, so be it.  But, while this rule is easier to police and is more practical to implement, even it doesn’t address the even-handedness of the application based on the number of grading periods a school has.  Nor does it do anything to discourage students from “down-grading” their level of personal challenge.

One internal concept with some traction would call for two-week interval grade checks for all activity students throughout the school year.  That would be 18 checkpoints for all students (even-handed).

If a student had an F (an incomplete would be considered a failing mark) in any credited class at the checkpoint, she/he would be academically ineligible through the next two-week checkpoint.  At that time, if the failing mark remained, the student would be ineligible through the next checkpoint.  If the failing mark is remediated, then the student regains their eligibility  (practical to enforce).  Checking all activity students each two weeks still takes some work to police – but certainly is not as complicated as the current rule.

As far as backing away from challenging courses, I’ve not been able to think of any “no pass-no play” formula that is guaranteed to encourage students to challenge themselves.  But, with two week checkpoints, a student will consistently have the opportunity to address failing work, rather than waiting until it is too late, thus eliminating one of the fears of taking on an advanced class.

This rolling two-week check is certainly not without flaws – which I’m sure readers of this column will point out.  I welcome that.  Once data is fully reviewed and analyzed, this concept may well be pointless.  But, it will take analytical, emotionless discussion and brainstorming to learn how best to elevate academic performance in our students who participate in interscholastic athletics.  That discussion should never end.  Given the response of our membership to the current academic eligibility rule, it is apparent the start of the discussion could not be more timely.