Global Education
September 10, 2013
More than a dozen years after our second and last son moved permanently from our home, a 19-year-old has moved in. She’s lived in South Korea, the Philippines and China; she graduated from the international school where our son and his wife are educators in China; and she’s attending our local community college.
Aside from having to change some of my ways to accommodate the presence of an unrelated female in my home, this has been an easier adjustment than I had anticipated. And one of the pleasant surprises is how interesting it has been to learn along with our guest about the English language and to see our local customs through her eyes.
When a word is used that she is unfamiliar with, we think up synonyms; when an idiom is used that she hasn’t heard before, we go to various apps on our mobile devices to learn about the origin of the phrase.
The county fair was a whole new experience with her in our company this year. Lake Michigan – a “fresh-water ocean” – was a wonder. The food portions served at restaurants are two or three times what she is accustomed to; but butter and blueberries are delights that disappear quickly from our refrigerator.
What my wife and I are doing is not unique. Literally thousands of families in this state alone open their homes to students from around the world to study in our schools and colleges. These interactions may be our best hope to save our planet from political and/or religious fanaticism around the world.
Michigan’s schools enroll more one-year foreign exchange students than any other state in the US, more than 2,400 during each of 2010, 2011 and 2012. If they are placed through a program listed by the Council on Standards for International Educational Travel (CSIET), these students are immediately eligible for interscholastic athletics, for one academic year, after which they have no eligibility for one academic year.
Of concern to many athletic administrators today is the increase in enrollment of international students outside a one-year foreign exchange program listed by CSIET. These students outnumber foreign exchange students by more than two-to-one in the US.
Our immediate challenge related to this topic is to assure these students are arriving in Michigan without undue influence related to athletics and that no Michigan school uses this pool of students to gain an unfair competitive advantage in interscholastic athletics.
The Fourth Option
February 27, 2018
Throughout the years, schools of this and every other state have identified problems relating to school transfers. There is recruitment of athletes and undue influence. There is school shopping by families for athletic reasons. There is jumping by students from one school to another for athletic reasons because they couldn’t get along with a coach or saw a greater opportunity to play at another school or to win a championship there. There is the bumping of students off a team or out of a starting lineup by incoming transfers, which often outrages local residents. There is the concentration of talent on one team by athletic-motivated transfers. There is friction between schools as one becomes the traditional choice for students who specialize in a particular sport. There is imbalance in competition as a result. And there is always the concern that the athletic-motivated transfer simply puts athletics above academics, which is inappropriate in educational athletics.
All states have developed rules to address the problems related to school transfers. In some states, it is called a “transfer rule” and in other states a “residency rule,” because linking school attendance to residence is one of the most effective tools for controlling eligibility of transfers. None of the state high school association rules is identical, but all have the intention of helping to prevent recruiting, school shopping, student bumping, team friction, competitive imbalance and sports overemphasis. The goal of promoting fairness in athletic competition and the perspective that students must go to school first for an education and only secondarily to participate in interscholastic athletics is paramount.
The transfer/residency rule is a legally and historically tested but still imperfect tool to control athletic-motivated transfers and other abuses. It is a net which catches some students it should not, and misses some students that should not be eligible. This is why all state high school associations have procedures to review individual cases and grant exceptions; and why all state high school associations have procedures to investigate allegations and to penalize violations where they are confirmed.
Over the years, state high school associations have considered four options to handle transfers. The first two options are the easiest courses: either (1) let schools decide themselves about transfers, as Michigan once did, but this leads to inconsistent applications and few states now subscribe to such an approach; or (2) make no exceptions at all, rendering all transfer students ineligible for a period of time, but this becomes patently unfair for some students and no state high school association subscribes to that extreme, although it would be easy to administer.
The third option – the ideal approach, perhaps – would be to investigate the motivation of every transfer and allow quicker eligibility or subvarsity eligibility to those which are not motivated by athletics, but this is very time consuming if not impossible to administer. No state high school association has sufficient staff and money to consider every detail and devious motive of every transfer.
This is why a fourth option has been most popular with most state high school associations. This is a middle ground which stipulates a basic rule, some exceptions (we have 15 exceptions in Michigan), and procedures to consider and grant waivers – a primary role of the Michigan High School Athletic Association Executive Committee.