This will, no doubt, be thrown out of court (if it even gets that far), but what is this woman thinking? Her freshman son cut from varsity basketball. Gee, that's never happened before.
This will, no doubt, be thrown out of court (if it even gets that far), but what is this woman thinking? Her freshman son cut from varsity basketball. Gee, that's never happened before.
Wasn't Michael Jordan cut as a freshman in HS?
This does bring up an interesting point. Athletics as a school activity is justified on the basis of its educational value. If school sports exist for educational purposes, why should some students be allowed to participate while others are not? If school sports do not exist for educational purposes, then why do they exist at all?
interesting point wrote:
This does bring up an interesting point. Athletics as a school activity is justified on the basis of its educational value. If school sports exist for educational purposes, why should some students be allowed to participate while others are not? If school sports do not exist for educational purposes, then why do they exist at all?
The educational value to this kid is learning that, despite his generation being told "everyone's special and a winner" that there are in fact winners and losers in life and that nobody's going to just give you what you want if you are undeserving in the real world.
They can start practicing in August and have 2-3 months of official practices before the season starts? And 9 of the 11 original members were replaced? What was the point of the earlier tryouts? Just let football season end and then start practices.
That is insane (not defending mom or son)
From the article:
"Bloodman's son, who is a minor and was not named in the suit, spent two months as part of the team after qualifying through two tryouts in August only to be replaced three months later by a member of the football team, as were nine of the team's 11 original players."
Once, for one of my jobs, I was doing some research on a question similar to this. I ran across 3 Federal court cases where someone had sued for not being made head cheerleader.
interesting point wrote:
If school sports exist for educational purposes, why should some students be allowed to participate while others are not?
If AP Calculus exists for an educational purpose, why should some students be allowed to enroll in it while others are not?
A course like AP Calc is appropriate for some people--i.e. they'll get a productive educational experience from it--but not for others, who are just not yet ready for the material and
a) would get a *negative* educational experience from it, and/or
b) while they were being mystified, might distrupt the class and prevent others from learning as much as they would otherwise be able to.
I do believe in the *educational* value of sports (full disclosure, though: I coached t&f for 20+ years), but I think some of them require the student to bring a certain level of ability--otherwise, the experience will not be positive. Ditto third-year German.
I'm sueing next time I apply for a job and don't get it, that will show them! What's the point of being on a basketball team if the whole school can be on it regardless of skill level? Kind of punishing the talented kids who deserve to be on it isn't it? Sorry but not everyone is an athlete. get over it
The true educational lessons this child has learned are as follows:
1. Don't cross the Mom, because she is a vindictive shrew.
2. Some attorneys will take any case to earn a buck. Ambulance chasers are still alive and well.
So if she wins, does the judge get to decide if the kid starts? Do you have a constitutional right to play a certain number of minutes or only to be a bench warmer? Is equipment manager good enough to satisfy the United States Constitution.
Does the kid with 2 left feet who couldn't carry a tune in a bucket have a constitutional right to be 1st chair trumpet in the marching band?
Insane tryout wrote:
They can start practicing in August and have 2-3 months of official practices before the season starts? And 9 of the 11 original members were replaced? What was the point of the earlier tryouts? Just let football season end and then start practices.
That is insane (not defending mom or son)
From the article:
"Bloodman's son, who is a minor and was not named in the suit, spent two months as part of the team after qualifying through two tryouts in August only to be replaced three months later by a member of the football team, as were nine of the team's 11 original players."
poorly designed team qualification structure/procedure - coach should have been fired!! Why the heck involve kids for that long, stringing them along really, only to replace them. Sends a very poor message.That the kids spent 2-3 months learning the game only to lose spots to kids who played football, shows that the coach wasn't very good at teaching the game, just at recruiting talent later. Sound familiar?
Sounds like something flagpole would do if his kid paced a faster runner in a race.
There is something called the JV team and the freshman team. Why can't the kid play on those teams?
Ridiculous. I was cut two times from JV baseball team before I finally made it in tenth grade. I went on to play Varsity team. I absolutely hate this new generation of parents where they think their children are entitled to everything.
Haven't studied the constitution since HS - can someone point out (if it is there) where it says that there is a right to education?
It is an interesting point. However, I can't see it going very far in civil court. It would set a precedent that would be impractical to hold up. And if it is the case that he is denied a basketball experience, then what about the people wanting to be on the swim team, but their school has no pool? Sue them? Who would they sue?
D of D wrote:
Ridiculous. I was cut two times from JV baseball team before I finally made it in tenth grade. I went on to play Varsity team. I absolutely hate this new generation of parents where they think their children are entitled to everything.
Just to be clear, you're talking about the parents who pay for you to have a team, right? If you want an exclusive team, pay for it. I don't mean pay an activity fee or pay some money to the booster club. I divide the amount of money required to have a team, divide by the number of players on the team, and bring a check for that amount. Then you can choose who to let on the team.
off the leash wrote:
Haven't studied the constitution since HS - can someone point out (if it is there) where it says that there is a right to education?
Equal protection doesn't exactly give the right to education, but it does mean that if you're going to provide anyone with education, you have to provide the same for everyone.
interesting point wrote:
This does bring up an interesting point. Athletics as a school activity is justified on the basis of its educational value. If school sports exist for educational purposes, why should some students be allowed to participate while others are not? If school sports do not exist for educational purposes, then why do they exist at all?
OK, so put everyone in honors classes or better yet AP classes. Why grade based on ability? Just give out really good grades to everyone.
There is limited playing time. Games don't go on forever so every kid can play. He's not good enough, that educational, he learned that.
I fund your habit wrote:
I divide the amount of money required to have a team, divide by the number of players on the team, and bring a check for that amount. Then you can choose who to let on the team.
Let me try that again in English: I mean take the amount of money required to have a team, divide that amount by the number of players on the team, and bring a check for that amount.
I'm not even going to click the link but let me guess shes black?