Bad Choice
September 11, 2015
It’s time to admit that school of choice may do more to harm than to help public education.
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.
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.
Engagement
October 31, 2017
In addition to daily calls, texts, emails and old-fashioned mail delivery, Michigan High School Athletic Association staff engaged face to face with its core constituents in these ways from August of 2016 through July of 2017:
- More than 350 local school visits, including:
- Approximately 120 to attend regular season local contests to evaluate officials for MHSAA tournament readiness.
- More than 60 to support or evaluate MHSAA pre-Final tournament events.
- More than 60 to speak at or support MHSAA CAP sessions (plus 25 CAP sessions at the MHSAA building).
- 12 for MHSAA.TV, NFHS Network or School Broadcast Program.
- 6 for Second Half website features.
- 6 for new school orientation.
- 5 for Battle of the Fans (each involving 3 MHSAA staff).
- 5 for officiating classes.
- 2 for Reaching Higher (each involving 4 or more staff).
-
More than 60 local officials association visits, including:
- 45 for rules meetings/presentations.
Plus 8 visits to officials camps,
5 presentations to college officiating classes, and
9 officiating recruitment events.
- More than 50 coaches association meetings.
- 24 for MHSAA rules meetings/presentations.
- 6 for CAP programs.
Plus the Coaches Association Presidents dinner at the MHSAA office involving 9 MHSAA staff.
- More than 50 league meetings, including:
- 8 to conduct student leadership or sportsmanship events or for team captains clinics (usually involving multiple MHSAA staff).
- 8 to provide event marketing assistance.
- 7 to provide MHSAA information/updates.
- 6 to provide MHSAA rules meetings/presentations.
- 3 for ArbiterGame training (usually involving 2 or more MHSAA staff).
Plus the League Leadership Meeting at the MHSAA office involving most MHSAA staff.
- More than 15 MIAAA meetings.
- 10 MHSAA staff at the March conference.
- 2 MHSAA staff at the summer workshop.
- 2 to 4 MHSAA staff at most board meetings.
- At least 1 staff at multiple committee meetings, strategic planning, etc.
- More than 50 standing committees, task forces and ad hoc study groups convened at the MHSAA office, and several did so multiple times.
What is abundantly clear here is that the MHSAA staff does not operate from an ivory tower or information vacuum.