The End is Near
December 10, 2013
From time to time we are confronted with print or broadcast media reports, or articles in scholarly publications, that criticize schools’ sponsorship of competitive athletic programs. Some authors have gone so far as to predict that the day is coming when schools are forced by the strength of intellectual argument or the shortage of resources to disassociate from competitive sports and to discharge that responsibility to local community groups and private clubs, as is the custom of most other nations.
For 50 years the “end is near” prophecy has been present among our critics. Today the prediction also can be overheard among cash-strapped school administrators, especially if they ascended to leadership without involvement in school sports.
It’s my sense that these dire predictions are not likely to come true for the reasons usually cited – e.g., that the programs dilute focus or divert funds of schools from their core mission. What is more likely is that these predictions will come true because those in charge ignore basic human needs and responses, and they fail to implement programs that meet those needs.
Our response should not be to lower sports’ profile in schools and offer less to students. It should be just the opposite. We should even more boldly proclaim the value of competitive athletic programs; we should provide more sports and levels of teams for high school students; and we should provide junior high/middle school students with more and longer contests, beginning at earlier ages.
We need to go on offense, as my next postings will prescribe.
Bad Choice
September 11, 2015
From our vantage point, we saw years ago that “choice” was disrupting schools more than it was improving them, and hindering more than enhancing the academic accomplishments of students.
What we saw years ago was that choice was more often exercised for adults’ convenience – to schools closer to child care or parents’ jobs – than for students’ academic improvement. Studies now tend to prove that observation is correct.
We also saw years ago that choice was mostly a chain reaction of prickly people. Students or their parents unhappy with their local school for one reason or another would move to a nearby school where, simultaneously, unhappy people would be moving from there to another nearby school. Studies now show that about half of choice students return to where they began; whether or not they ever accept that the fault was their own and not the fault of the first school is more difficult to discern.
In July, Michigan State University reported some of the most recent research about, and some of the faintest praise for, school of choice; but because previous studies have demonstrated that students’ learning diminishes as their mobility increases, there should have been much more scrutiny of Michigan’s school of choice policy when it was introduced 20 years ago, and as it has spread to 80 percent of Michigan school districts since 1994.
As a means of improving schools, choice has failed by making poor schools worse. As a means of integrating schools, choice and charter schools have actually re-segregated schools. And as a means of destroying neighborhoods, choice has been the perfect weapon.
You want to rebuild Michigan? Then start with neighborhoods, at the center of which will be a grocery store and a school, both within walking distance for their patrons who are invested in them.
School of choice has created problems for administrators of school sports. But what’s far worse is the damage it has done and continues to do to our students, schools and society.