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?

Scheduling Controversy

November 14, 2017

A dozen years ago, I asked our counterpart organizations in other states if they scheduled their schools’ regular-season varsity football games. Very few did so.

More recently, I’ve realized that I didn’t ask enough questions. It turns out that few statewide high school associations tell schools who they play each week of the regular season. However, many more give schools the group of opponents they may schedule. They place schools in leagues and/or districts and/or regions and instruct schools to schedule from among those schools only or predominantly.

I have been waiting for the tipping point where a sufficient number of high schools in Michigan are sufficiently stressed over scheduling football games that they would turn to the MHSAA to solve the problem.

I’m anticipating this might occur first among schools playing 8-player football, and that success there will lead to our assistance for 11-player schools.

One approach – the simpler solution – would work like this:

  • All 8-player schools within the enrollment limit for the 8-player tournament would be placed in two divisions on the basis of enrollment in early March. About 32 schools in each, based on current participation.

  • At the same time, each division would be divided into four regions of about eight schools.

  • In April, the schools of each region would convene to schedule seven regular season games for each school.

  • Based on current numbers, schools would still have two open weeks to fill, if they wish, for games with schools in other regions or of the other division or in neighboring states.

A second option – the date-specific solution – would provide every school its weekly schedule for all nine dates, or weeks 1 through 8, or weeks 2 through 8, depending on local preferences. This would not be difficult in concept once there is agreement on what criteria would be used and what value each criterion would have.

For example, one important criterion would be similarity of enrollment; another of great value would be proximity. Perhaps league affiliation would be a factor with some value. Perhaps historic rivalries would be another factor with a value. Then the computer spits out schedules for each school for every week for two years, home and away.

I don’t campaign for this task because, frankly, it will produce complaints and controversy. But if this organization exists to serve, then this is a service that today’s chronic complaints tell us we should begin to provide soon.

I suggest we do this for 8-player football for the 2019 and 2020 seasons (with a paper trial run for 2018). If it proves successful, we could expand the service to 11-player schools as soon after as they are satisfied with our efforts for 8-player schools.