The recent debate over whether the state Board of Education should eliminate high school junior varsity sports to save $1 million raised the usual points: Organized athletics are important for teen-agers. It teaches them leadership, teamwork and good sportsmanship. It keeps them occupied, when they would otherwise be idle and prone to mischief or more dangerous pursuits.

These are good points. School athletics clearly benefits students who participate. The state should spend more on these programs, not less, the argument goes.

So let's ask an uncomfortable question: Why do students who try out for teams get cut? Should these important, publicly funded athletic programs be open to only those students judged by coaches — not teachers, principals, counselors or parents — as worthy? Why can't they be all-inclusive, like Little League or AYSO? Those leagues have fairly strict rules that require full participation, because they recognize that the value of their programs lies not in winning, but in playing the game. After all, it's hard to learn teamwork and fair play when you're sitting on the bench. Or worse, not being allowed to do even that.

Coaches may argue that it can be dangerous to mix top athletes and weaker ones, especially in rough sports like football. They may argue that freshman or JV programs prepare student-athletes for the varsity programs, or that they offer similar opportunities, even if those students don't make it to the top level. But even at the frosh and JV levels, the weakest students are weeded out. These arguments also avoid the unspoken but critical point — that high school athletics, especially at the varsity level, are mostly about winning.

Naturally, coaches and athletic directors want to field the best team they can. They cull through the students, weeding out the weak ones, giving special attention to those who best fit the needs of the team. It's good to win, they argue; it's a measure of achievement, for the athletes, the coaches, the school. Winning is something to be proud of. That's the way it's always been, and if you don't understand why, you were probably one of those kids who never made the team.

Certainly, there's truth in this. And to be fair, this system of meritocracy is used for non-athletic teams as well. Of course, it's unlikely that chess teams and math leagues are asking for millions of dollars to pay for coaches and equipment. And athletics can be far more inclusive that academics: Not everyone can do AP calculus, but most everyone can run, or jump, or throw.

All the same, when two teams square off, the point is to win. But it's not the only point. There are lessons learned by winning, to be sure; but those lessons aren't always more valuable than those learned by simply participating, or even by losing. And because this is a school activity, the lessons, including the hard ones, are what's important.

Otherwise, it's just entertainment. And entertainment doesn't deserve one million of our hard-earned education dollars. It doesn't deserve a nickel.

This entry was posted on Monday, August 11th, 2008 at 5:26 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.