Slow to Seeding
April 11, 2016
While it is an inevitable topic of discussion, it is not inevitable that the MHSAA Girls and Boys Basketball Tournaments will involve seeding of any significant scope.
The fact that there was no seeding proposal even considered by the MHSAA Basketball Committee this year is indicative of two facts:
There are many people who are totally against seeding the MHSAA Basketball Tournaments; and
Those who favor seeding cannot agree on how to do it.
It is possible that someday there will be limited seeding that does not involve margin of victory or cause additional travel for participating teams – perhaps placing the top two teams of a geographic District onto opposite District tournament brackets, or perhaps seeding the four teams that reach the Semifinals in each class.
Proposals that encourage teams to run up scores during the regular season or send teams to Districts outside their geographic area and/or involve the Regional tournament level are less likely to win favor. And, of course, the devil is in the details of the criteria for determining which teams are better than others.
The MHSAA Representative Council has taken the position that if seeding is to occur in MHSAA tournaments, it will be considered on a sport-by-sport and level-by-level basis. While some MHSAA tournaments already have seeding at one level or another, the Council knows that seeding for some sports and some tournament levels of other sports may never be acceptable.
The MHSAA Representative Council is also wise enough to know that seeding is really not an important topic, at least in comparison to the compelling health and safety issues to which the Council has been devoting great time and money during this decade.
Bad Choice
September 11, 2015
From our vantage point, we saw years ago that “choice” was disrupting schools more than it was improving them, and hindering more than enhancing the academic accomplishments of students.
What we saw years ago was that choice was more often exercised for adults’ convenience – to schools closer to child care or parents’ jobs – than for students’ academic improvement. Studies now tend to prove that observation is correct.
We also saw years ago that choice was mostly a chain reaction of prickly people. Students or their parents unhappy with their local school for one reason or another would move to a nearby school where, simultaneously, unhappy people would be moving from there to another nearby school. Studies now show that about half of choice students return to where they began; whether or not they ever accept that the fault was their own and not the fault of the first school is more difficult to discern.
In July, Michigan State University reported some of the most recent research about, and some of the faintest praise for, school of choice; but because previous studies have demonstrated that students’ learning diminishes as their mobility increases, there should have been much more scrutiny of Michigan’s school of choice policy when it was introduced 20 years ago, and as it has spread to 80 percent of Michigan school districts since 1994.
As a means of improving schools, choice has failed by making poor schools worse. As a means of integrating schools, choice and charter schools have actually re-segregated schools. And as a means of destroying neighborhoods, choice has been the perfect weapon.
You want to rebuild Michigan? Then start with neighborhoods, at the center of which will be a grocery store and a school, both within walking distance for their patrons who are invested in them.
School of choice has created problems for administrators of school sports. But what’s far worse is the damage it has done and continues to do to our students, schools and society.