Logo

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?

A Change Narrative

October 13, 2017

Here are five points to describe the essence of possible changes being processed by the Michigan High School Athletic Association for its transfer rule.

  1. We would move from a rule designed years ago for three-sport athletes to a rule that’s equally effective for regulating single-sport athletes.

  2. We would be treating all sports the same, regardless of season – fall, winter, spring. No longer would the transfer rule have a greater impact on winter sport athletes than fall or spring sport athletes.

  3. We would be getting out of the way of more “school of choice” parents who want to move a child from one school to another. If the student has not played a particular high school sport before, then eligibility is immediate in that sport ... at any level, and without any MHSAA Executive Committee action.

  4. We would be causing students who have played a high school sport (and their parents) to pause before they transfer. They would miss the next season in that sport unless one of the 15 stated exceptions to the transfer rule applies. (There is significant sentiment that this apply only to students who have played previously at the varsity level – i.e., if the student has participated previously only at the subvarsity level in a sport, that student could transfer and remain eligible at the subvarsity level; but this would be allowed one time only.)

  5. We would make it even tougher on students (and their parents) to circumvent the athletic-motivated and athletic-related transfer rules by eliminating the automatic residency exception in those special cases. (This is the most hotly debated of the changes being considered.)

The theme is “get out of the way of the benign transfers and get still tougher on the really bad ones.”