Failing Boys
July 9, 2012
In the autumn of 2002, I included the following statement in a longer editorial in the MHSAA Bulletin:
“Year after year I go to league and conference scholar-athlete awards banquets and see girls outnumber boys by wide margins: 54 girls to 33 boys honored at a March event in mid-Michigan is typical of what has occurred many places over many years.
“Year after year, I attend senior honors programs and see girls outnumber boys: 147 awards to girls versus 70 awards to boys honored at a May event in mid-Michigan is typical.
“Look at these figures from the National Federation of State High School Associations:
• “68.3% of vocal music participants are girls.
• 66.4% of participants in group interpretation speech activities are girls.
• 63.3% of participants in individual speech events are girls.
• 62.7% of orchestra members are girls.
• 61% of dramatics participants are girls.”
Nothing since that time has changed my opinion that schools and society at large are expecting far too little of boys. It’s as if boys get a free pass from high expectations if they do sports and don’t do drugs. Far too little is asked of far too many of our male students.
Now add this to the story: There is a growing body of research that supports the premise that while high school sports participation is great for girls, it’s actually bad for high school boys. Bad because it leads to lower participation in non-athletic activities, lower achievement in the classroom, and lower scores on measures of personal conduct and character than their female counterparts.
Males are dropping out of high schools at higher rates and enrolling in colleges at lower rates than females. They’re abusing drugs at higher rates than females, and males are committing both violent and petty crimes at much higher rates than females. Could much of this be linked to the low expectations we have for high school students? Isn’t it time for organized advocacy on behalf of boys?
Sweating the Small Stuff - #3
June 5, 2018
I’m sure it discouraged some of our state’s high school football coaches to learn that the Representative Council of the Michigan High School Athletic Association did not approve at its May 6-7 meeting what some people refer to as the “enhanced strength of schedule proposal” for determining 256 qualifiers to the MHSAA’s 11-player football playoffs.
There was desire among some Council members to appease those who keep trying to reduce the difficulties that a football tournament causes for regular season scheduling and conference affiliations. Others noted that the proposal, as presented, could cause as much harm to some schools and conferences as it would help others, that it did not solve the scheduling problem but shifted it.
During spirited discussion, some Council members resurrected two ideas that have been rejected previously, such as (1) doubling the playoffs once again (and shortening the regular season to eight games), and (2) coupling a six- or seven-win minimum with the revised strength of schedule criteria. The pros and cons of each idea flowed freely.
And therein is the problem. If one digs down into the details of proposals, both old and new, there are both positive and negative aspects apparent, both intended and unintended consequences likely.
There can be paralysis in analysis; but when we are dealing with more than 600 high school programs and a physically demanding sport with fewer regular-season contests permitted than in any other sport, one cannot be too careful. Eliminating one of just nine regular-season games? Increasing first-round tournament mismatches? Disadvantaging larger schools locked in leagues or areas of the state where smaller schools predominate? These are not minor matters.
And until there are sensible answers, these are not trivial questions.