Necessary because of limited budgets

* The reality is that so few students are ever cut that budget savings are minimal.

* Budgetary reasons are often cited to keep numbers low and make organization easier.

Better for some students to be cut

* Presumably cutting is always second best to being part of the team otherwise logically it follows that children would be just as happy to be cut as to remain on the team!

* Attempting to predict a child's potential at any age is highly unpredictable

* If cutting is better for some students but does not occur in some activities, logically it follows that coach/advisors who never cut (football, wrestling, 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?)

* Ask the students who have been cut how they felt about the experience and if they plan to try out again for the same activity. In many instances the experience is humiliating and they will never again come close to the activity.

* The students who are cut are not the high skilled and highly self-confident. They are the low skilled and in most need of care.

* Cutting is clearly discriminatory. If discrimination is not permitted based on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, age, national origin, lifestyle, mental ability, family social or cultural background upon what basis can we justify discriminating because of physical ability?

Cutting occurs in other areas of the curriculum

* 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, (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.

* Student 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.

A no-cut policy would weaken programs

* 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. The strength of a program depends on its depth.

* 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.

A formal no-cut policy is unnecessary

* 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.

Cutting is the "real world"

* So is being dropped in the deep end of a swimming pool and discovering if you will sink or swim or letting young children negotiate busy roads and seeing if they can avoid the traffic. These - like cutting - are not educationally sound practices.

* While a purpose of school might be to prepare students for the "real world" it generally occurs in stages. When children are ready they are exposed to opportunities to make good decisions. Adolescence is the worst possible time to tell students they are not good enough.