Board Strikes Down Further Exemptions for Student-Athletes

A motion to extend physical education exemptions to student-athletes, including those at the sophomore level, was defeated by the West Morris Board of Education amidst fierce debate at a meeting Monday at the West Morris Central High School library.

The motion would have extended a program that already exempts athletes for one marking period (during the season of their sport) to two or three, depending on the number of sports played, and the overlap on the school calendar for marking period length.

There was a bit of confusion between the Board members on how long the new policy would actually exempt an athlete from physical education courses. Discussions indicated, however, that a student-athlete would miss out on “two classes in a marking period (because of another study hall) for three marking periods, for three years,” according to Mendham Borough member Jacqueline Schram.

Teachers Relay Concern During Public Comments

Physical education teachers also turned out en masse to show their disapproval for the measure. This came as the exemption recommendation on the consent agenda coincided with the approval of the new physical education curriculum, which has a distinct new focus on wellness.  

“In regards to the physical education exemption, there’s already one study hall,” said Robin Meyh, physical education teacher at West Morris Mendham High School. 

“If there’s two, athletes would not be meeting standards and would have a narrow view of fitness. They’d miss out on technologies and policies that have been integrated into the curriculum, and I think there should be a prerequisite for an exemption.”

Kenneth Rossi, a physical education teacher at Central, also condemned the idea. “As a student-athlete, you have to manage academics and athletics. That’s what colleges are looking for, and the curriculum is important to be exposed to,” he said.

Central’s football coach, Kevin Hennelly, also spoke passionately on the subject, saying, “It’s so important to exercise on a regular basis. There’s a sense of community you get from health and phys. ed… you learn to exercise appropriately and have fun. You don’t need another hour off during the day; you need physical activity to learn lifetime activities. And you need to manage your time, because that’s what the real world is about.”

Board Handling of the Matter

As the time came for action on the subject, Schram again voiced dissatisfaction with the exemption idea, saying, “I don’t recall ever seeing students come in to ask for this, and this affects students, so they’d probably want to say something and haven’t so far.”

“Also, not every sport is a team sport, so if you do it and also receive an exemption, you’re not getting the same (social) interaction,” she added.  

According to Superintendent Mackey Pendergrast, the idea “reflects what some other schools have done; and the state hasn’t come up to say it’s inappropriate, though a number of schools are in arbitration at the moment.”

With space capacity, management, financial and job-based concerns being unearthed by multiple board members, the superintendent and those on the policy committee indicated that the measure is not remotely close to a money-saving, job-killing action.

“The policy is already set for one marking period,” said Washington Township member, Lisa Woodring. “It’s not a cost-saving program, we’re just offering another choice and bringing it to the Board now to talk about it. We’re not taking anything away, it would just be another option.”

Board President James Johnston said, “It’s about the students, it’s about wellness; we’re not going to meet state standards by expanding this program.

“Athletes would lose the rigor of education… and there’s a state mandate to teach physical education. We cannot bypass that for some study hall time. Plus, the (course) programs for sophomore year are valuable… this should not be going forward at this point.”

‘Clarity’ for Board Protocol

Another member spoke up to bring forth an entirely new concern. “I’m against this 100 percent,” said Chester Borough member Donald Storms. “I don’t even remember moving it to the policy committee.”

Explaining a need for clearer, more precise protocols for the board, Pendergrast explained that he had motioned for it to go into policy review, and then a call to end discussion was carried out. The motion was then defeated in a vote that saw all board members vote ‘no’ except for Chester Township member Marcia Asdal.