This past week saw the publishing of a very interesting piece by Jake New at Inside Higher Ed relating to the roll “class checkers” play in the academic lives of student-athletes. The concept of class checkers might be unfamiliar to many and is pertinent to other articles that have been featured at College AD. The basic idea behind the practice is simple: university employees or volunteers collect signatures from student-athletes when they arrive for their classes in an effort to curtail cutting.
According to David Ridpath, a professor at Ohio University, the practice is so common that if a school doesn’t employ class checkers (which go by a variety of names and depend on the particular institution), it is an outlier. This makes sense. The appeal of class checkers seems particularly straight forward, especially when universities are able to have volunteers fill the positions. Not only can athletic departments present the practice as evidence they are being proactive in supporting their athletes in the classroom, but according to Gerald Gurney, a professor of adult and higher education at the University of Oklahoma, class checkers do help student-athletes achieve at a higher level.
In today’s climate where academic scandals at major institutions and the arguments regarding education as recompense for athletic performance make headlines, one might expect efforts to ensure students take the first and most basic step towards being college educated would be lauded. Interestingly, there is a surprising amount of push-back against the class checker practices at many universities. One essential criticism is as fundamental to education as anything: class checkers prevent students from making mistakes, growing from them, and learning of their own accord and passion. Like checking homework or quizzing on last night’s reading, class checkers, some argue, make learning an obligation and not a privilege to be enjoyed. Worse, say some, the practice prevents student-athletes from being accountable for their own actions and the ramifications of them. Essentially, by making absenteeism and tardiness more difficult, many wonder if athletes don’t learn from their mistakes.
This argument is limited, however, as athletes can still skip class (and be punished) regardless of the presence of class checkers. In fact, responsibility and accountability are still just as possible with class checkers in place as it is when professors take attendance on their own and mete out a penalty for absences. Perhaps a more compelling argument comes from Ridpath, who views class checkers as an invasion of his classroom, a view undoubtedly shared by other professors. Just as coaches stake autonomy over their fields, so to do many professors feel protective of their class spaces and might not appreciate incursions from other departments, academic or otherwise.
While perhaps Ridpath is throwing the baby out with the bathwater by exiling class checkers from his classroom based on notions of territoriality, the idea that class checkers should, theoretically, be unnecessary is an interesting one. Student-athletes, for a multitude of reasons, often struggle in the classroom, with sleep deprivation and long hours being two substantial culprits. Instead of requiring signatures of exhausted, apathetic students, if schools got serious about enforcing time limits on team-related activities, attendance would improve by its own accord and not because a watchdog sat by the door. Then, university athletic departments would be seeking to cure the disease currently afflicting thousands of student-athletes instead of simply treating a symptom of a larger academic issue.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.