Fancy: Under a no-cut policy all students would have equal right to choose their level of participation or roles in any co-curricular activity regardless of ability.

Fact: A no-cut policy would simply guarantee students the right to participate and learn. Selection for teams or representative roles would be based on demonstrated ability. Not-cutting would ensure that the lesser skilled would have equal access to learning opportunities. Terry Orlick, a prominent sport scientist observed, "The process of cutting is a vicious circle for the one who doesn't make it. He is cut because he is not good enough to make it and is consequently given no opportunity to practice on a regular basis so that he can become good enough to make it - so he is rejected again the following year."

Fancy: Cutting students is necessary because of limited budgets.

Fact: The reality is that so few students are ever cut that budget savings are insignificant. Those who cut do not do so for financial reasons. According to the Ellensburg High School Athletic Director, requests for funding to avoid the process of cutting individual students have never been made.

Fancy: The real issue with cutting is the parents' self-esteem not the child's.

Fact: Despite the absence of any documented support, the beauty of this Fancy is that it transforms the oppressed into the oppressor and absolves those responsible for cutting from the impact of their actions. Parents have every right to defend unfair policies applied to their children. The fact is that being cut from one's peer group can be one of the most embarrassing, humiliating, and degrading events in a teen's life. Cursory examination of the literature on adolescent development, teenage alienation and drop out, and gang involvement testifies to the significance of peer group affiliation during the high school years.

Fancy: It is better for some students to be cut because it toughens them and thereby builds self-esteem.

Fact: If cutting wasn't always second best to being part of the team logically it follows that children would be just as happy to be cut as to remain on the team! The fact is that the students who are cut are not the highly skilled and highly self-confident. They are the low skilled and most in need of instruction. If cutting really is better for some students but does not occur in some activities, logically it follows that coach/advisors who never cut (football, wrestling, track etc.) are not doing what is best for some students! Should there be a policy requiring all coach/advisors to cut for the benefit of those lacking the ability to make it? Evidence abounds to show that self-esteem is not built on the basis of failure. A North Carolina study recently reported that athletes make higher grades, get into less trouble, drop out less often, and have higher grade point averages than non-athletes. A 1990 study by the Institute for Athletics and Education noted that high school girls who played sports were 80% less likely to have unwanted pregnancy, 92% less likely to be involved with drugs and three times more likely to graduate from high school. Clearly, students benefit from participation in, not exclusion from organized activities.

Fancy: Cutting students is better for students who lack the ability to be successful in their chosen activity. Elementary and middle school is the time for skill development. High school is the time for competition.

Fact: Attempting to predict a child's potential at any age is highly unpredictable. Research has shown that physical maturity is the primary reason for athletic success at younger ages. However, success at a young age has been shown to be a poor predictor of success during the teen years. Cutting is especially unfair on late maturing students and weakens competition by reducing the pool of potential talent.

Fancy: Cutting occurs in other areas of the curriculum. Not all students can register in upper level math, science, or language classes.

Fact: While it is true that students have to meet specific criteria to enroll in higher level classes, these criteria are generally: (1) Specific and objective, (2) known in advance, and (3) applied to all students equally. In contrast cutting in co-curricular activities rarely occurs on the basis on any objective criteria, the criteria are not known in advance so that students can prepare, and cutting occur selectively to individual students who the coach/advisor singles out as lacking potential. Furthermore, students who fail to meet the specific criteria in the classroom generally are provided equitable opportunities to learn in their areas of deficiency. Students cut from co-curricular activities do not have any equitable learning opportunity. Intramurals for example, meet once a week and do not involve instruction.

Fancy: A no-cut policy would weaken programs

Fact: On the contrary a no-cut policy would strengthen programs because it is common knowledge that the foundation of successful programs depends on the strength of the base of support. More participation through the absence of a fear of being cut would increase skill levels. According to the 1993 Position Statement of the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), "The justifiable existence of interscholastic athletics lies in the educational values obtained from them by the athletes...Any actions or events that distort or overemphasize the appropriate role of athletics in an interscholastic environment diminish their potential as a justifiable educational experience." School co-curricular activities are supposed to be educational and not modeled on the professional sports model. The benefits of participation in a school activity are accrued from being part of groups that are striving for excellence: Learning a good work ethic, trying one's best, and cooperating with peers are characteristics that remain with students a lot longer that win-loss statistics. Orlick writes, "To cut a child because he is not good enough negates our purpose and our responsibility to our children and to society...Those people seeking athletic participation who are cut off may be the ones who could benefit most from this experience."

Fancy: A formal no-cut policy is unnecessary

Fact: The entire history of civil rights in this country contradicts this proposition. Without formal policy, leaving the option to the discretion of individual coach/advisors increases the likelihood of abuse. The position of NASPE is that, "Boards of Education, superintendents of schools...must take full control of the interscholastic athletic programs within their school systems to ensure that the educational benefits of athletics receives the proper emphasis."

Fancy: Cutting prepares students for the "real world."

Fact: Schools prepare students for the "real world" in stages. Educators progressively expose children to new knowledge and teach the skills necessary to succeed in an ever changing world. Ellensburg School District's Strategic Plan, states a commitment to "providing a safe, nurturing environment" and "protecting and respecting the dignity and worth of the individual." Cutting students - denying them the opportunity to learn - is educationally unsound and hardly represents "an environment that fosters positive self-esteem."

Fancy: Cutting reflects the American way (corollary: Non-cutting is anti-American). A powerful fancy because of the implication that proponents of a no-cut policy are somehow unpatriotic.

Fact: If America is truly the land of opportunity, denying students the opportunity to learn and achieve success is contrary to the American way. Denying opportunities to learn in a publicly funded program on the basis of a lack of ability is only different from discrimination on the basis of sex, age, race, culture, or mental disability because currently it is not illegal.