[Fly Like a Duck]

Why are we, as a society so appauled at the thought of parents holding their son/daughter back in a grade, even if it has a little bit to do with athletics; in hopes of helping their son/daughter get college paid for?

Fact of the matter is, great grades and great athletic performance= college is free (as well as just great academic performance alone). What bothers me is the fact that if 13 year old, John Doe who is around an average student who is maybe in drama or band gets held back, then so be it, nobody gives a flip. But, let it that same kid play a sport, and he/she be halfway decent in their sport(s) then let's blow the roof off in an uproar and people in the school community cry, "Well, his parents just held him back for sports..blah, blah, blah...gripe, gripe, gripe...b!tch, b!tch, b!tch."

I look at academics just like I look at athletics in the sense of, how good are you really? How much can you improve? What can you do to get better? Unless you are literally a rocket scientist in the making then what can being held back really hurt? Today's kids in high school have so many more opportunities than we had in terms of classes offered and even being ablel to earn college credits. It's not like if they get held back they can't excersise the resources offered to challenge themselves more academically (through excelled honor classes to even taking honor classes that allow them to earn college credits in high school, to even having the ability to take college courses online while in high school).

Has anybody who is against holding back the good student-athlete (in both) ever thought that it could be more beneficial to their long term academic success? Maybe holding back the 8th grader who doesnt turn 14 until the June before his freshmen year (meaning he would turn 18 the summer he graduates) who is an average athlete, but a great student will allow him/her to start earning college credits his junior year of high school, all the while allowing them to gain a little more advantage on the playing fields? Why is that so bad of a thought? I dont get it.

I read where somebody posted that they felt if a student needs to be held back for athletic reasons, then they just aren't a very good athlete; that might be true. I read that as basically saying, a kid either has IT or the they don't. So, why can't it be viewed the same way in academics? If a kid is brilliant, is holding them back to where they take the same classes over again really going to negatively effect them that much? If a kid is brilliant, they are brilliant. Is taking 8th grade Pre Algebra over again, when they made an 'A' in it already really going to have that much (if any) of a negative effect on his/her progress in the future? Or is that just a mentality where we just assume is true b/c, well, everybody else says it; so screw it, Ill feel that way, too?

I'm like others on here who have very rarely, if ever seen negative effects of holding kids back.