Mandate Mania
January 13, 2017
In the closing days of the last session of the Michigan Legislature, our public servants introduced many bills that had no chance of passage before the year ended and the bills died. Many of those legislative initiatives were to appease local constituents, and they were merely symbolic gestures.
Introduced during this session-ending period when style points matter more than substance were two bills that caught our attention.
- House Bill No. 6026, introduced on Nov. 9, 2016, would have required public schools to demand at least two hours of instruction concerning sexual assault and sexual harassment prior to every student’s graduation.
-
House Bill No. 6052, introduced on Nov. 29, 2016, would have required public high schools to demand at least 40 hours of instruction on “sustainability and environmental literacy.”
These are not bad things, of course; but I’m concerned about the increasing burden on our schools.
Not all opponents of these bills should be cast critically. Regardless of the importance of the issues, there is a practical limit to what public schools can be expected to do – especially after their resources have shrunk and their school year has been shortened.
Personally, I would like all schools, both public and nonpublic, to teach all children a second language in early elementary school. I would like students to be “drown-proofed” before they reach middle school.
But I want not one of those things mandated without first removing an existing mandate under which our schools are being forced to operate at this time. No entity can do a good job at some things if it’s being asked to do everything.
I wish all members of the Michigan Legislature who have a mandate in mind for our state’s schools will pause to look for an existing mandate to sunset before proposing any new requirements.
School Sports Benefits
June 14, 2016
The May 2016 issue of Kappan features an article by an assistant professor at Texas A & M and a doctoral academy fellow at the University of Arkansas who argue in favor of school-sponsored sports. They cite benefits to students, schools and communities:
“Student-athletes generally do better in school than other students – not worse. Opening high school sports to girls in the 1970s led to a significant and meaningful improvement in female college-going and workforce participation. Tougher academic eligibility requirements that schools place on athletes have decreased dropout rates among at-risk students.
“Schools that cut sports will likely lose the benefits that school-sponsored sports bestow. Removing these activities from K-12 education would likely have negative effects on historically underserved school communities. As was the case with the Great Depression, less-privileged families would be less able to afford the expense of having their children participate in organized sports due to the cost of travel and registration fees of club organizations.
“We do not contend that school-sponsored athletics are perfect and should be preserved exactly as they are, even in the face of financial constraints. In tough financial times, everything should be scrutinized. Sports are no exception. But when we look at the larger body of evidence, we find that sports are a tradition in U.S. education that has genuinely benefited students and their school communities.”
One by one the article (with the unfortunate title “History and evidence show school sports help students win”) disposes of typical arguments against school sports:
-
That sports participation has no role in academic development and may undermine it.
-
That European-style club programs would enable adolescents to participate in sports while eliminating negative influences that school sports have on academics.
-
That eliminating school-sponsored sports will increase student participation in other extracurricular activities.
The evidence, according to the authors, does not support those arguments. Click here to read the article.