Logo

A Can-Do Response

January 5, 2015

Michigan has a tradition of some of the nation’s most lenient out-of-season coaching rules, especially in the summer; and yet, the few rules we have are sometimes blamed for driving students to non-school programs.

Nevertheless, there is some validity to the criticism. It is observably true that non-school programs seem to fill every void in the interscholastic calendar. The day after high school seasons end, many non-school programs begin. The day a school coach can no longer work with more than three or four students, a non-school coach begins to do so.

The challenge is to balance the negative effects of an “arms war” in high school sports against driving students toward non-school programs. It’s the balance of too few vs. too many rules out of season.

The out-of-the-box compromise for this dilemma could be to not regulate the off season as much as to conduct school-sponsored off-season programs in a healthier way than they normally occur, i.e., to move schools back in control of and in the center of the non-school season. To not merely regulate what schools and coaches can’t do, but actually run the programs they can do and want to do.

Of course, this would require more of what schools have less of – resources. School administrators who may be in agreement that schools should operate off-season programs to keep kids attached to in-season programs still balk because they lack resources. At a time when resources are being cut for basic support of in-season programs, how could they justify spending more for out-of-season outreach?

Ultimately, in discovering the sweet spot for out-of-season interaction between school coaches with student-athletes, we need to give at least as much attention to providing more opportunity for what they can do together as for what they can’t do.

Good New, Bad News

July 30, 2012

There’s some “good” news on a bad topic:  participation fees.

In addition to news stories about several school districts which have had fees but are now dropping them, and donors who are stepping up to reduce fees in other districts, the overview provided by the MHSAA’s annual survey of participation fees shows that predictions that fees would explode in frequency and size this year have not come true.

Surely, it is not good news that half of 514 reporting schools charged fees in 2011-12; but that percentage is unchanged from 2010-11.  Nine years ago, when the first survey was conducted, half that percentage charged fees.

Nor is it good news that the median fee charged was $75 in 2011-12; but that number has increased only $5 since 2009-10.  Nine years ago, however, the median fee was less than one-third of what it was this past school year.

The fact that the MHSAA has conducted this survey for nine years and provides resources to help schools fairly and efficiently administer participation fees does not mean we think they are a good thing, or a good way for schools to respond to their financial woes and realities.

  • We don’t think participation fees are the best business decision in an era of competition between school districts to enroll students and capture the accompanying state aid.

  • We don’t think participation fees are good for coaches who face different expectations from parents when they have paid for their child to be on the team.

  • We don’t think participation fees are good for students, especially winter and spring sport athletes and second, third and fourth children in families who sometimes get the short end of things when family budgets are tight.

Participation fees are an impediment to participation, which is an obstacle to student engagement in schools at a time when schools desperately need such investment.  And such fees remove one of the defining differences between school-sponsored sports and community-run youth sports programs.

(Go to Schools – Administrators – Pay-to-Play Resources for more information.)