You're right in saying this isn't an Us vs. Them problem. In the end, you're deciding how to spend tax money on programs that all of your children could benefit from. But the reason this article got printed was based on the general idea of football players versus band kids.
I tend to agree that a 1 fail policy would be better. I failed chemistry TWICE. The second time i actually (mostly) tried. Chemistry is impossible for me for whatever reason... Zero tolerance is tough stuff. I've seen kids get screwed by the Zero tolerance rule. They fail one class, can't do the activity in school they enjoy, they lose interest in academics all together, and eventually drop out.
I understand that there are kids who use the athletic department as a way to get through their high school experience, as i did with my music. If those kids didn't exist, neither would the department.
But i'd be hardpressed to find a parent who attended schoolboard meetings trying to change policy because their kid couldn't perform in the chorus concert.
And even if that chorus parent went and raised valid points for spending cuts to one department over the other, as long as athletics is the "other" in this equation, that parent's concerns wouldn't warrant a newspaper article.
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
