Logo

Program Priorities

January 10, 2014

Many school districts face more requests from their constituents for sports programs than they have the resources to accommodate, so they are forced to make very difficult decisions. For three decades, when I’ve been consulted, I have offered and stood by this advice.

First, I advance the premise that if the activity is educational, there is just as much potential for the education to occur at the junior high/middle school and subvarsity levels as at the varsity level. Just as we would not discriminate against one race or gender, we should not disadvantage one age or ability level. In fact, with a little less pressure to win, it is likely to see more education at subvarsity levels and more reason to sponsor them.

Second, I advocate the position that schools should avoid sponsorship of any activity for which a qualified head coach cannot be secured. Qualified personnel are, in order of priority:

  1.  a teacher within the building who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.
  2.  a teacher within the district who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.
  3.  a teacher in another district who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.
  4.  a certified teacher from the community who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.
  5.  a non-certified person who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.

I urge schools not to descend lower than this for program leadership. Coaches are the delivery system of the education in educational athletics; they are the critical link in the educational process. More problems occur than are worth the effort if the program is in the hands of an unqualified coach.

Next, I urge that schools rank sports on the basis of cost per participant, and give higher priority to sports that spread funds over the greatest number of participants.

Next, I urge that schools place lowest in priority the sports that cannot be operated on school facilities and create transportation, supervision and liability issues, and give higher priority to those conducted at or very near the school.

Next, I urge that schools place lowest in priority the sports which are most readily available in the community, without school involvement. If resources are precious, then duplicating school programs should be a low priority; doing what the community can’t do or doesn’t do should be given a much higher priority.

While I’m a fan of school sports, I recognize that an athletic program has as much potential to do harm as to do good. Programs without qualified coaches that are conducted for small numbers of students at remote venues and without comprehensive school oversight and support may create more problems for schools than the good they do for students.

Bare bones budgeting will require brutally honest assessments based on priorities like these.

“Tournacation”

February 9, 2018

Here is one of several gold nuggets from Tom Farrey, executive director of the Aspen Institute, in a piece commissioned by the British Broadcasting Company and published in late December.

A study by George Washington University found that what children wanted most from sport was the chance to play and to try their best, guided by a coach who respects them.

Of the 81 reasons they gave for why sports were fun, “winning” came 48th, “playing in tournaments” 63rd, and “traveling to new places to play” 73rd.

Children’s wishes, however, are not always put first, as parents compete to provide what they believe are the best opportunities.

In the U.S., for instance, there may be no better example of the state of play than the growth of the “tournacation,” a term merging “tournament” and “vacation.”

At one of the nation’s largest children’s football (soccer) tournaments, in rural New Jersey, a drone in flight is best positioned to see the scale of such an event.

Up there, you can see the 75 pristine pitches that will host more than 600 teams of children aged nine to 14, chasing shiny balls, in shiny uniforms.

The cars of thousands of parents mass at the playing fields’ edges.

A two-day event such as this is an opportunity for organizers to make serious money, in this case up to $1,250 per team.

That’s on top of travel and hotel costs of as much as $500 and the $3,000 or more many parents pay each year to their child’s club.

It is an industry built on the wallets of parents, and the chase for opportunities to play in college, perhaps with a scholarship.

What the drone can’t see is how many other children – those who aren’t early bloomers, or whose families don’t have the funds, or time, to take part – have fallen away from the game.

They are often unable to join the best teams, which have the best coaches, training environments, and access to college scouts.

Football (soccer) has declined among those left behind, with fewer children joining either local teams, or playing informal games in the park.

Since 2011, the number of six- to 17-year-olds who play football (soccer) regularly has fallen nine percent to 4.2 million, according to the Sports and Fitness Industry Association.

The number of children who touch a football (soccer ball) at least once a year, in any setting, was down 15 percent.

For more, please click here.