The Massachusetts Model
August 19, 2016
Late last spring the veteran executive director of the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, Bill Gaine, spent a half-day at the offices of the Michigan High School Athletic Association to share insights about ways state association staff can serve the mission of educational athletics. Here are some of my notes from that experience:
-
“Steal and build.” At the MIAA, the approach has been to steal the good ideas of others and build upon those ideas.
-
“Marry student life with academic life.” The MIAA leadership tries to make an intentional, purposeful connection between the after-school and school programs of MIAA schools.
-
“Connect rhetoric with policies and programs. You can’t have just policies or only programs; you must have both.”
Over 18 years, five pillars of policy and programs have evolved for the MIAA: Health and Wellness in 1984, Sportsmanship in 1993, Coaches Education in 1998, Student Leadership in 2001, and Community Service in 2002. All constituents get the whole package all the time, according to Gaine; and there is an MIAA staff person in charge of each pillar.
The “5 Pillars” is the curriculum the MIAA teaches athletic directors, with specific lesson plans. Gaine says, “The AD is the school’s curriculum coordinator for educational athletics.”
Our Own Worst Enemies
September 26, 2017
The early history of school sports was in four phases. It began as activities that students alone would organize. Then schools saw the need to supervise. Then schools created statewide high school athletic associations to standardize. Then a national federation of those state associations brought an end to corporate and college efforts to nationalize school sports. All of this between the U.S. Civil War and World War II.
The entire history of school sports has had one overriding narrative. Inherent in the struggles that defined each phase of the early history, and every decade since, has been the struggle between those who believe competitive athletics is an asset for schools intent on educating students in body, mind and spirit, versus those who believe interscholastic athletic programs are a distraction at best and, at worst, damaging to the character development of students. There is much evidence to support both sides of this long debate.
Sometimes, the advocates for school-sponsored sports have been, and are, their own worst enemies. What the advocates of school sports must realize is that the more they do to enlarge the scope of school sports ... more games, longer seasons, further travel, escalating hype ... the more they prove that the opponents of school sports have been correct.
As they encourage the chasm between athletics and academics and between school sports' haves and have-nots to widen; as sports teams are outfitted in uniforms that are fancier and funded for travel that is further, while classroom resources are fewer; as sportsmanship declines and athletic transfers increase; the so-called “progressive” thinkers help make the case that competitive athletics is bad for students, schools and society.
Opposition to escalation in school sports is not old fashioned; it's the only way to assure the future of sports in schools ... the only way to save school sports from itself.