Shared Responsibility

March 26, 2013

/* /*]]>*/

My counterpart in Georgia has a nice way with words, and recently used that talent to add his perspective to topics like those we’ve been addressing here in Michigan.  In the March 2013 Georgia High School Association newsletter, under the title “All of Us Must ‘Pay the Price’ for Student-Athlete Wellness,” GHSA Executive Director Ralph Swearingin writes:

“In ‘History and Philosophy of Education’ courses many of us learned that an early concept in the American educational system involved the school operating ‘in loco parentis’ – in the place of the parent.  During those early days, that concept was applied to the authority of school personnel to regulate the behavior of students.  Over time, however, the application of that concept to school discipline has diminished.

“It is interesting to note that school personnel are called upon to fulfill parental roles in ways that were not prevalent in the past.  Over time there has been an evolution of responsibilities placed on the educational system to provide services that used to be provided by the family.  One such area involves the responsibility to be the ‘health and safety guardians’ of our students.  Debates about whether it is the school’s responsibility are non-productive.  This responsibility has been thrust upon member schools and state association staff members, and it is doubtful that this trend is reversible . . .

The very nature of athletics makes it impossible to guarantee the safety of every student in every sport.  The goal is to minimize the risk to these students with prudent preparation and vigilant supervision.  While the American culture may be thrusting this responsibility on the school personnel, there are productive ways to send some of that responsibility back to the students and their families.

“. . . Students and their families need to be informed about all of these issues.  Preseason meetings with players and parents or guardians should involve the dissemination of information about relevant health and safety considerations . . .

“But education of players and their families is not enough.  Coaches must be certain to teach techniques that minimize risks, and to be certain that all equipment used in the sport are in good repair and are being used properly.  School personnel need to be certain that published guidelines and protocols are being followed.  Doing these things involves the expenditure of time and money, but the well-being of our students dictates that we ‘pay the price.’ ”

A Change Narrative

October 13, 2017

Here are five points to describe the essence of possible changes being processed by the Michigan High School Athletic Association for its transfer rule.

  1. We would move from a rule designed years ago for three-sport athletes to a rule that’s equally effective for regulating single-sport athletes.

  2. We would be treating all sports the same, regardless of season – fall, winter, spring. No longer would the transfer rule have a greater impact on winter sport athletes than fall or spring sport athletes.

  3. We would be getting out of the way of more “school of choice” parents who want to move a child from one school to another. If the student has not played a particular high school sport before, then eligibility is immediate in that sport ... at any level, and without any MHSAA Executive Committee action.

  4. We would be causing students who have played a high school sport (and their parents) to pause before they transfer. They would miss the next season in that sport unless one of the 15 stated exceptions to the transfer rule applies. (There is significant sentiment that this apply only to students who have played previously at the varsity level – i.e., if the student has participated previously only at the subvarsity level in a sport, that student could transfer and remain eligible at the subvarsity level; but this would be allowed one time only.)

  5. We would make it even tougher on students (and their parents) to circumvent the athletic-motivated and athletic-related transfer rules by eliminating the automatic residency exception in those special cases. (This is the most hotly debated of the changes being considered.)

The theme is “get out of the way of the benign transfers and get still tougher on the really bad ones.”