The Case Against High-School Sports, Bobby B

Summary Response Outline

Summary:  “The Case Against High-School Sports” by Amanda Ripley illustrates the idea that high schools would be better off without sports.  Ripley supports her idea by showing that a school in Texas could save $150,000 by suspending sports for one year.  Additionally, Ripley supports her idea by showing how playing football is a lot more expensive than getting them a math education,In fact, it would save $682 per student.  Throughout these examples, Ripley demonstrates that times are changing and this could lead to high schools making a change, even if that means the absence of sports.

• Topic sentence: title, author, strong verb, main idea
• Supporting ideas and explanations to prove main ideas
• Concluding sentence: restate main idea

Response:

• Topic sentence: title, author,,correctly portrays/ incorrectly portrays___(Main Idea)________ because ___________ .
• Claim 1: “The Case Against High-School sports” by Amanda Ripley incorrectly portrays the idea that high schools should banish sports because there are many perks when it comes to playing sports in high school.  According to “10 Reasons Why High School Sports Benefit Students” by Grace Chen, “ The Science in sports and Exercise found that students who were active in sports like soccer, football and even skateboarding performed 10 percent better in core subjects like math, science, social studies, and language arts” (Chen).  Data shows that students who participate in an after school clubs have higher a GPA than students who aren’t involved with sports.  Students who play high school sports learn the attribute of working hard and staying focused.  However, “The Case Against High-School Sports” by Amanda Ripley proclaims that high school sports should be terminated for several reasons.  Ripley urges schools to be focused on academics rather than sports.  Ripley states, “When Marguerite Roza, the author of Educational Economics, analyzed the finances of one public high school in the Pacific Northwest, she and her colleagues found that the school was spending $328 a student for math instruction and more than four times that much for cheerleading—$1,348 a cheerleader” (Ripley).  School are finding it more important to pay significant amounts of money towards sports rather than using that money for academic purposes.  Ripley feels that schools are taking away from students education by spending money on clubs/sports and not school improvements. In summary, “the Case Against High-School Sports” by Amanda ripley incorrectly portrays that high schools should not allow sports.
• Set-up
• Evidence: Lead-in  “ quotation” (Shakespeare 1.2.13-17).
• Explanation of quotation to prove claim: explain quote, connect to claim
• Counterclaim 1: However, ....
• Set-up
• Evidence: Lead-in  “ quotation” (       )
• Explanation of quotation to prove counterclaim: explain quote, connect to claim
• What are the strengths/ flaws of this argument? (use rebuttal progression language)
• Concluding sentence: restate main idea

A common view is that sports in high school should be banned.  This position seems reasonable because high school sports are getting very expensive.  The money that goes to sports could be put towards making improvements for student's education.  However it’s more complicated than that, high school sports have many perks and it would almost seem silly for administrators to take sports away.  Students who participate in sports learn communication, time management, increase academic scores, multiple other qualities.  Majority of athletes in high school have a higher GPA than those who don’t participate in sports.  Sports gives students a sense of pride.  When they put on that jersey they know they belong somewhere.  They know they are representing something they care about.  In conclusion, high school sports have many perks/benefits and schools would be hurting students if they banned sports