What Does EXTRA----mean?

It used to be that extracurricular activities went on outside of school hours. That's pretty much the definition of the term. Now, coaches in the state of Texas want to make sure that student athletes can get credit for all four years of athletics. They site the danger of attrition if this doesn't happen. Really? Do you really have athletes dropping out of varsity football to take APFrench? I mean, it could happen, and I know kids who are in athletics and advanced courses, but is this really necessary? I think what bugs me is that this goes into the whole erosion of the class load. Right now in Texas students are required to take four years of the four core classes, plus economics, government, health, fine arts and two years of foreign language. That's a pretty full plate especially if a kid has to backtrack a couple of times. So why are coaches doing this? In my experience, coaches get hired first and fired last. Is there really that much danger of a coach losing a teaching job? Our AAAAA team has 75 students and TEN ASSISTANT COACHES!!! That's a 1:7.5 ration. Compare that with the average English class that has 32 students and the differences are amazing and appalling. I hope the TEA doesn't buckle on this because this smacks of being just another jobs program for coaches. They get precedence already, they don't need this ruling.

Define ExtraCurricular

Extracurricular-Adj. That which is outside the normal curriculum.

What happened to the idea of extracurricular activities. Athletics, band, cheerleading were all things that you elected to do as something BEYOND the basic realm of classes. Yet now we have actual classes, with, I assume, actual curriculums, syllabi and standards. Why is this? Is it that we have caved in to the parents who want their children's every breath given credit weight? Or have administrators become so dazzled by the reflected glory on the ball field that they throw huge amounts of money for staffing, equipment and facilities toward these non-academic pastimes. And that is what they are. Like it or not, cheerleading is NOT a class. It's an activity. Like it or not football and baseball and basketball are all activities-not classes. Sure, you can learn to block, or learn to hit, or learn to throw a layup-but it's still not intellectually stimulating. Now I know many kids think this is the only way for them to get a college education. And that is the fault of a society which is so enamored with celebrities that we now have celebrities that are famous for such things as behaving badly, going to rehab and wrecking cars. This worshipful attitude towards those who are seen as talented has got to change. People often wonder where these young athletes and stars develop such horrible personalities. Maybe it's because rather than teaching them to read and think, all their schools and parents concentrated on what how cute they were, how talented they were or how good they were at athletics. Some kids are really good at working this type of minor fame into excuses for dismissing ignorance, stupidity and out and out self-centered behavior. If they are talented enough they work their ways through college being coddled for their fame until they either graduate or move onto some major league or field of work where such hubris is appreciated. What are we teaching them when we value those superficial things over the real meat of education? When was the last time your school had a pep rally for the Debate team? Or the Math Club? Or the Academic Decathalon team? I know my school hasn't and probably never will since almost all of the administrators in my district are ex-coaches. I am not saying athletics and such aren't important, but as the Greeks said, in all things "balance". And we are dreadfully unbalanced right now.

Is This Our Future?

We in Dallas are suffering through yet another demanding professional sports team's whining about facilities. So in response, rather than having the actual team, which is a BUSINESS, build their own facility, voters bought into a rather tenuous arguement that building a Temple to The Dallas Cowboys would bring wealth to their cities. Just prior to the election, a professor at a local university came out with studies proving that such facilities don't improve the local economy, but instead often depress is due to the burden of local taxes that must be used to pay off the building bonds. In looking at this, I considered what the impact would be when this facility opens. First of all, there are only a finite number of pro games, Super Bowls and college games that any facility can reasonably hold during the year. And you won't get a Super Bowl or ProBowl but about one time out of ten. Although the projections were that for a Super Bowl the amount of money that could be put in the local economy might range as high as $100,000, 000-that isn't all going to be heading to the town where the facility is located. Most of that money will stay in Dallas or Ft. Worth in the form of hotels/motels, car rentals and restaurants. There are also side issue which haven't yet been discussed. Unlike facilities in Chicago, Boston, New York or LA, the facility being built in Arlington for the Cowboys has no public transportation. That forces people to pay to park and further constricts an already tight traffic corridor. Unless the state or federal government come up with cash to wide and improve highways, trying to make it to the game will be a logisitic nightmare. Add to that the location of the stadium far away from the wealthiest fan bases. The Rangers have already experienced the lack of attendance during the week due to a combination of late starts and long travel times, and although the Cowboys play on Sunday usually, there will be traffic issues forced upon the local governments. All this comes down to money. And currently parking is $8, beer is $3, and a hotdog is $3 at the current facility. That is going to have to go up exponentially in order to cover the overhead. I personally consider going to most of the professional sports events as too costly, I can't even imagine how high prices will go. So I wonder, will we continue to have people who claim to have no money to pay for their kids education spending upwards of $200 a week to take the family to a sporting event? And as with the Romans in the linked article, will we start to see even more of the cultural tiering based on status? We already have the luxury boxes, is it too far away for Jerry Jones and his fellow owners to don the purple of empire and give a thumbs up or thumbs down? I'm just asking.........