Logo

Failing Boys

July 9, 2012

In the autumn of 2002, I included the following statement in a longer editorial in the MHSAA Bulletin:

“Year after year I go to league and conference scholar-athlete awards banquets and see girls outnumber boys by wide margins:  54 girls to 33 boys honored at a March event in mid-Michigan is typical of what has occurred many places over many years.

“Year after year, I attend senior honors programs and see girls outnumber boys:  147 awards to girls versus 70 awards to boys honored at a May event in mid-Michigan is typical.

“Look at these figures from the National Federation of State High School Associations:
 
• “68.3% of vocal music participants are girls.
• 66.4% of participants in group interpretation speech activities are girls.
• 63.3% of participants in individual speech events are girls.
• 62.7% of orchestra members are girls.
• 61% of dramatics participants are girls.”

Nothing since that time has changed my opinion that schools and society at large are expecting far too little of boys.  It’s as if boys get a free pass from high expectations if they do sports and don’t do drugs.  Far too little is asked of far too many of our male students.

Now add this to the story:  There is a growing body of research that supports the premise that while high school sports participation is great for girls, it’s actually bad for high school boys.  Bad because it leads to lower participation in non-athletic activities, lower achievement in the classroom, and lower scores on measures of personal conduct and character than their female counterparts.

Males are dropping out of high schools at higher rates and enrolling in colleges at lower rates than females.  They’re abusing drugs at higher rates than females, and males are committing both violent and petty crimes at much higher rates than females.  Could much of this be linked to the low expectations we have for high school students?  Isn’t it time for organized advocacy on behalf of boys?

5 Questions for 8-Player Football

April 10, 2017

The 2017 8-Player Football Playoffs will be conducted over four weeks in two divisions of 16 teams each for the 60-plus teams sponsored by Michigan High School Athletic Association Class D schools.

That much was decided by the MHSAA Representative Council on March 24.

There are five questions (at least) that the Council still must answer:

  1. How should teams qualify? Since the first 8-player tournament in 2011, teams have qualified by playoff point averages – the 16 highest qualified for the tournament. Should this be changed to a system of automatic qualifiers on the basis of wins, plus additional qualifiers on the basis of playoff points to complete the field – like the 11-player tournament operates?

  2. When should divisions be determined? Should it be in late March when division breaks for other “equal divisions” tournaments are set? Or should divisions be determined nearer the start of the season – say, September 1 – so all late additions, deletions, and cooperative program changes can be factored in before the two divisions, based on enrollment, are determined?

  3. Where will the championship games be played? Should the Council designate a doubleheader at the Superior Dome in Marquette so the MHSAA can focus all its resources on one climate-controlled facility? Or should two sites be designated now (perhaps the Superior Dome in Marquette and Legacy Field in Greenville), and the specific games and times assigned as the playoffs progress in an attempt to reduce travel times for teams and spectators?

  4. Should the maximum enrollment for the 8-player tournament be the moving target of the Class D maximum (203 in 2017) or a fixed number – for example, 215, the Class D maximum in 2011 when the 8-player tournament began? This decision could be deferred to the Council’s meeting in December.

  5. Should there be a “grace period” for schools that are eligible for the 8-player tournament one year but have enrollments that exceed the 8-player limit the next year – for example, eligible only the following year and only if the enrollment does not exceed the 8-player enrollment limit by more than 12 students? This decision could also be delayed to the December meeting of the Council.

As our excitement builds for the expanded 8-player tournament, so do the questions.