Logo

Anytime, Anywhere

July 28, 2014

The MHSAA’s Coaches Advancement Program (CAP) is like no other high school level coaches education program in the US.

In an online world, including many other ways here at the MHSAA, CAP still trades purposefully in face-to-face learning; and the MHSAA Is committed to delivering sessions “anytime, anywhere” – any time a school, district, league or coaches association will sign up 20 coaches, the MHSAA will deliver one or more of the six CAP levels the group requests.

About 60 percent of those who complete CAP Levels 1 through 5 do so as a part of their course work at one of seven colleges or universities in Michigan (Central Michigan University, Kalamazoo Valley Community College, Lake Michigan Community College, Muskegon Community College, Northern Michigan University, Oakland County Community College and Western Michigan University).

The other 40 percent of those who complete CAP – and this will be a growing percentage – do so through sessions facilitated by a group of people who have committed many evenings and weekends to CAP’s “anytime, anywhere” approach to ongoing, adult education. During 2013-14, Jerry Haggerty, athletic director at Hamilton High School, led all presenters, teaching 25 sessions. Among other of the busiest presenters were Tony Moreno of Eastern Michigan University; retired athletic administrator Jim Feldkamp; Ken Mohney, athletic director at Mattawan; and Hally Yonko, athletic director at Ann Arbor-Gabriel Richard High School.

The leader of boundless energy and enthusiasm for CAP is MHSAA Assistant Director Kathy Vruggink Westdorp. In 2016-17, CAP Level 1 or 2 becomes a requirement for all persons hired for the first time at any MHSAA member school after July 31, 2016 as a high school varsity head coach. Kathy and a growing cadre of presenters are eagerly awaiting that challenge.

The team closed the 2013-14 school year by presenting eight levels of CAP at six different sites over six days, June 9-14, and then conducted CAP Levels 1, 2 and 3 on three consecutive days, June 19-21, at Clinton High School.

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.