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.
Tracking the Transfer Rule
September 19, 2017
We are not the first generation of school leaders to be concerned about athletic transfers in secondary school sports.
Lewis L. Forsythe, in his 1950 book Athletics in Michigan High Schools, described his era and earlier this way: “... there were enough who transferred for advantage, as they thought, in athletic opportunities to give wide currency to the term ‘tramp athletes.’ These were usually students who became ineligible in schools in which they had first enrolled, or became otherwise disaffected in their home situation and went elsewhere to continue school. It was possible, for example, for a boy to play football at Ann Arbor one season, drop out of school until the next March first, and then enter Jackson High school. Here he could make himself eligible for baseball and track by merely ‘passing’ in ten hours (later twelve hours) of work from time to time according to the reporting methods of the school, and then leave without taking final examinations. The next semester he might enroll in Detroit High School, and, by satisfying eligibility requirements for the current semester, play football in that school. With no age limit and no required check-up on eligibility in another school, this could go on for at least five years.”
Mr. Forsythe, writing in 1950, cited concerns as early as 1901, which led the state athletic committee to adopt the first transfer rule for school sports in Michigan. It required a student going from one secondary school to another to present a certificate from administrators of the school left that the student was eligible under the athletic rules of the time. The issue of the time was that students who were performing poorly in the classroom of one school would attempt to escape ineligibility due to academic deficiencies by transferring to another school
Two years later, a rule was adopted to address undue influence (recruiting) that required all schools to sever all relationships with a school that attempts to influence any athlete to change schools.
A year later (1904), this proposal was debated: “A student who has played on a football team, or on a baseball team, or who has taken part in any track events, going from one school to another, shall be ineligible to enter any secondary athletic contest for one year, unless the parents of such student move from one school district to another ...”
It took 20 years for a rule change to actually be made in this direction: “No student who has been enrolled as a high school student in any high school shall be permitted to participate in any interscholastic contest as a member of any other high school until he has been enrolled in such school for one full semester, unless the parents of such student actually change their residence to the second school district. In the latter case, the student will be as eligible as he was in the school from which he withdrew.”
There, in the first code of rules promulgated by the Michigan High School Athletic Association in 1924, is the core of our 2017 rule ... ineligible for one semester, with the exception for an actual change of residence.
Today we debate that the period of ineligibility is too short and the residency exception is too lenient.
As for the period of ineligibility, across the U.S., one year is more common than one semester. As for the residency exception, it exists everywhere. In fact, in some places the “transfer” rule is referred to as the “residency” rule.