Logo

Parent Problem

October 29, 2013

For years when I have paused in presentations to ask coaches and school administrators to identify the biggest problems we have in school sports, two problems are far most frequently mentioned:

  • Too little money; and
  • Too many misdirected parents.

Other problems are cited; but far and away, the most frequently mentioned problems are under-funding of programs and over-involvement of parents.

In many aspects of the lives of youth, there is too little parent involvement and direction; but such is not the case in most places when it comes to sports. “Helicopter parents” not only hover, they also seek to rescue their children from the very situations – adversity – that sports uses to teach life lessons.

Parents have no role in decisions regarding playing time and game plans. Should parents ever believe that their child has been put at risk in a sports program, there are prompt and appropriate ways to address those situations, directly and with discretion, not gossip and guile.

And the job description of school administrators today must include the staunch defense of the jobs our committed coaches are doing.

Transfers

January 10, 2017

When it comes to transfers, the staff of the Michigan High School Athletic Association gets lots of advice, but it comes from opposing directions.

One camp thinks MHSAA rules are inadequate. This group suggests that we expand the basic period of ineligibility from approximately 90 days to 180 days and/or it wants the MHSAA to eliminate most or all exceptions that allow for immediate eligibility of a transfer student.

This first camp is so frustrated with high-profile athletic-motivated or related transfers that they want to clamp down on all transfers.

The other camp thinks parents have the right and responsibility to send their children to any school they wish and have immediate access to the full benefits of that school’s curricular and extracurricular offerings.

This second camp is encouraged by the laws of Michigan which have gradually extended “schools of choice” as an option that all school districts may exercise. And this camp will be emboldened if the Secretary of Education under the new regime in Washington, D.C. is the long-time schools of choice advocate who has been nominated by the President-Elect for this position.

This second camp is on the right side of history, no matter how much I dislike it and no matter how convinced I am that the better way to have improved public education would have been to invest more in neighborhood schools. Improving them builds most communities. Ignoring them, as we have for 25 years, sends surrounding communities into downward spirals that worsen poverty and public health.

The ill-advised efforts to improve education by enticing students out of their neighborhoods to attend schools elsewhere has undermined “local ownership” in schools; and it has had the side effect of encouraging more transfers motivated by or related to athletics. Monitoring and managing such transfers is made more difficult by these educational reforms; but the new world will not tolerate transfer rules that are seen as too broad and contrary to what has become public policy, however poorly conceived and executed.

The fact is, the future of the transfer rule will be less about extending its reach and more about retaining its existence.