Colleagues:

A few thoughts on our recent co-curricular meeting. If I understood correctly, there seemed to be some sentiment that a cut policy should remain an option because in some instances it was the best policy for children. I think an example was given in which it might be obvious to an adult that a child was not suited or lacked the ability to participate safely or effectively in an activity. I'd like to address the issue of the benefits of cutting. Personally, I find it helpful to relate this question to a situation I might encounter in my own experience as a teacher, or how I would like my own children treated by others.

As some of you know I organize a unicycling and juggling program here in Ellensburg. If any of you visited my unicycling program I suspect that unless you had prior experience you would find the skill very difficult. In comparison to my skilled performers you would look clumsy and uncoordinated. As I observed your efforts I could take at least two different courses of action. First, I could tell you that with determination and more practice you could learn the skill and perform successfully. Alternatively, I could tell you not to return because of your lack of skill, that it would probably take you a long time to master the skill, that even with practice it's doubtful whether you would ever perform the skill well, that my time could be better spent with the people who can already demonstrate competency. What would be the right thing to do?

Take a moment to imagine yourself in this situation. If I indeed told you that you weren't good enough or (more graciously) that you should consider trying a different activity, I wonder how you'd feel and think. Would you thank me for my honesty and accept that as the instructor I know best, that I possess the "expert" knowledge that qualifies me to make this decision? Might you not question that perhaps - given your newness to the activity - I probably don't know you well enough to make this decision, and that perhaps I shouldn't make assumptions regarding your determination to succeed at this activity? I suspect that you might think that you were better qualified than me at deciding your likelihood for success. I suspect that if I shared my opinion on your lack of ability during the first few weeks of practice you might also think that I hadn't really given you much time to prove yourself. I suspect that if I told you that you not only were low skilled but that you couldn't return to continue practicing you would feel extremely disappointed and possibly quite angry. I also suspect that if most of your friends participated in this activity you might feel humiliated, embarrassed, and possibly emotionally devastated. Finally, I suspect that you would never risk trying out again for my program. In short, even given my honest opinion, I don't think that you would believe that I had made the right decision for you.

The idea of coaches or co-curricular activity leaders deciding whose children should have the opportunity to participate in a co-curricular activity makes sense to me in only one scenario - if we can be truly certain that these decisions will always be in the children's best interests. And yet certainty in predicting learning potential in instructional situations is patently impossible. In the Ellensburg schools we have an array of adults with vastly differing backgrounds who for the most part do not know our children well - especially in the first few weeks of participation in a new program. Counter examples are numerous to illustrate that the prediction of future ability is speculative at best, and extremely error-prone at worst. I wonder how you would feel if your children were eliminated from any opportunity to learn an activity that they really wanted to learn.

As parent of three children (two now in college) I am continually surprised at the twists and turns in interests and abilities demonstrated by my children. I would have failed miserably if in the past I had attempted to predict activities suited to my children's abilities. Is it really realistic for us to believe that another adult, however well meaning, can predict future potential given the limited amount of contact they have with our children. And even if we believe that some adults genuinely have this ability is it right to place other children in situations where we know erroneous judgments will occur?

Sometimes we may be tempted to say that this kind of experience represents the real world but I wonder if this is really the kind of worldly experience we as parents would choose to provide for our children. In preparing children for the real world it seems to me that parents and educators rarely take the path of intentionally exposing unprepared children to real world consequences. Instead, we attempt to prepare children by helping them develop the skills and self-confidence needed to be successful. Much of what parents and educators do is an attempt to protect children from the harmful threats of the real world until they are confident that children have the necessary coping skills. For example, if we as adults cross the street without looking we risk being struck by a car. We protect children from this real world experience by holding their hands, providing crossing guards, and teaching the skills needed to cross streets safely. The adult world has few rules on the use of alcohol or cigarettes, yet society and schools choose to impose rules in an attempt to protect young people from the harmful consequences of substance abuse. (Could I also drop non-swimmers in the deep end of the pool and defend this as a real world experience!). Real world experiences can be cruel, painful, and life-threatening even to adults. Choosing to expose children lacking the necessary survival skills, if not a form of abuse, hardly represents a desirable educational experience.

In the discussions we had recently it seems to me that by omitting the "no cut" policy we are ensuring that certain children in our school district will continue to be cut. Which children? Unfortunately, it seems to me that those most likely affected will be the low skilled, those lacking in self-confidence, and those having low self-esteem. Instead of creating a positive learning atmosphere - as described in our mission statement - we are ensuring a negative experience for a small, select group of children, many of whom are most in need of encouragement. When these children discover that they aren't good enough many will give up trying, not only in sports or band, but in the academic area too. Our society is faced with an increased incidence of dropping out of school and substance abuse among young people. And while participation in a co-curricular activity is certainly no guarantee of a healthy lifestyle, students who are busy in activity spend at least part of their day in a positive environment.

Is it essential for us to include a specific reference to a no cut policy? I suggest that it is for the same reason that such a policy was mandated at the middle school. A policy is the best assurance we have of consistency across all programs and all adult instructors. We don't have to hope that instructors will do all that they can to avoid eliminating our children because they will have no alternative but to keep them. This may be another key point for our committee to remember. We are developing policy for everyone. Some instructors will be unaffected because they already pursue an inclusionary policy. This policy eliminates the option for others and if properly adopted by the school district should include procedures for assisting instructors faced with a wonderfully high turnout.