Inactivity Epidemic
May 27, 2016
The Aspen Institute conducted its third “Project Play” Summit in Washington, D.C., on May 17. The sold-out event was both a stimulating and frustrating experience.
There are very many people doing marvelous things to increase the quantity and quality of sport participation among youth, especially focusing on ages 6 to 12 and underserved populations. However, intriguing local initiatives do not appear to be easily scalable, and the platitudes of national organizations do not appear to be reaching their local affiliates where youth coaches pressure parents and kids into year-around specialization and promise college scholarships.
We cannot expect that those whose business is winning medals (NGBs and USOC) or those whose business is making money (major college and professional sports) will be thought or action leaders who effectively increase participation rates and frequency or reduce obesity in adolescents. These goals will be good for PSAs and niche initiatives, but will never be a part of the DNA and daily mission of these entities.
We need to seek leadership of thought and action among adults who work with youth every day and who see sport not as an end in itself but as a means to help prepare the whole child for later life. And to be more precise, we need to seek leadership where the kids are and where facilities already exist. In our nation’s schools.
When recess and physical education programs with ample opportunities for free play and sports sampling are restored to elementary schools, and broad and deep programs of interscholastic athletic programs are adequately funded in junior high/middle schools and high schools, then and only then will we begin to reverse obesity in youth and their future burden on society as adults.
The epidemic isn’t obesity; it’s inactivity.
This nation must awaken to the reality that physical literacy is as important to our future as reading and writing have been in our past. Science, technology, engineering and math are important to our nation, of course, but possibly less essential to an individual’s health and happiness than physical literacy – developing the ability, confidence and desire to be physically active and, as an intentional consequence, much more likely to live healthier and longer.
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.