Extracurricular Programs Must Be Heard
December 17, 2012
A team assembled by our Governor has brought forward the most thoughtful and comprehensive proposals to overhaul public education our state has seen in a long time, perhaps ever.
Nevertheless, there is little evidence that the hard work has included more than cursory attention to the extracurricular programs that create a point of connection for students and a sense of community from small towns to urban neighborhoods across our state – programs that provide motivation for students to stay in school, like school and do better in school, and for parents, boosters, friends and neighbors to invest in that school.
Some may argue that the neighborhood school is as anachronistic as the nine-month school year. While I’ve long and often criticized the school year as too short, I continue to advocate for neighborhood schools.
I’ve seen too much harm to students educationally and to communities economically as a result of sending students hither and yon for their schooling. And the so-called innovations have been resegregating public education every step down this ill-advised path.
The mantra “any time, any place, any way, any pace” may be a catchy phrase to describe where reformers wish to take public education in Michigan. It may also be the wrong direction for students, communities and ultimately our state, taking us back to a time when students dropped in and out of schools without much accountability.
As for our little piece of this – emotion-charged extracurricular programs – we’ll do our best to maintain a little order, some respect for rules and responsibilities, and a sense of fairness and equity.
There are many days in many places where 40 or 50 or 60 percent or more of a high school’s student body is participating in extracurricular athletics and activities. They are not unimportant to the education of those students and to the quality of life in those communities. Even if they haven’t been consulted during recent planning, extracurricular programs will be heard from during the coming debate.
Transfer Culture
March 14, 2017
It is rare when a problem of major college athletics doesn’t eventually become a pollutant of high school athletics. A current issue demonstrates the point.
In 2015, NCAA research reported that about 40 percent of Division I men’s basketball players who had entered an NCAA institution directly from high school as freshmen had departed that institution by the end of their sophomore year.
Approximately 44 percent of the transfers were to other Division I programs, 33 percent to Division II programs, one percent to Division III, and 23 percent to non-NCAA colleges. Nearly 90 percent of all transfers said they changed schools for athletic reasons.
At the 2016 Men’s Final Four, NCAA President Mark Emmert stated that the issue of transfers is one of the most hotly debated in NCAA men’s basketball and football.
The culture that contributes to this is created in youth programs, starting even before students reach high school. There are no rules that govern players’ change from one non-school team to another, year after year. Players, parents and handlers talk with each other about where players can find the coach or team that will give them the best shot for a college scholarship or to fulfill their dreams of a professional career; and they will drive any distance from their homes to connect with that non-school team or coach.
This culture has infected high school sports, as witnessed by what appears to be increasing numbers of students who change schools for reasons more related to their non-school contacts and their college dreams than their high school experience, either athletic or academic.
These pressures will only increase under the current model of major college sports that treats superior athletes as if they were superior human beings and lavishes publicity and perks upon them. Until the major college sports experience is disincentivised, those colleges will have transfer troubles. And so will we.