Logo

Family Focus

September 2, 2014

The year I graduated from college (1970), 40 percent of U.S. households consisted of a married couple and their children. According to research summarized in AARP The Magazine’s June-July issue, the percentage was only 19 percent in 2013.

Even more startling is this: In 1960, five percent of U.S. births were to unmarried women. In 2012, it was 41 percent.

Very far from the most important impact these trends have on life in America today is the slice of American society we serve: competitive school sports.

In the 1960s and 1970s, schools would expect two parents in attendance for each child’s games or meets. In 2014, it is not unusual that one or infrequent that both parents are absent when their son or daughter competes.

Of course, school programs today have more boys sports and an almost entirely new slate of girls sports for parents to observe than two generations ago; and many times multiple events are scheduled simultaneously and force attentive parents to miss one child’s game while another child competes elsewhere.

It’s not my purpose here to point to specific strategies needed to keep parents constructively engaged in school sports. The limit of my commentary now is to offer a reminder, even to myself, that the manner in which we did things when the family unit looked one way is very likely in need of an overhaul, or at least a tweak, when the family unit looks very different.

The challenge, of course, is finding new avenues for old messages – fresh ways to deliver lasting core values. If we continue to proclaim that our brand is family friendly, we will meet this challenge.

Considering the Unrepresented

November 22, 2011

When I interviewed for the job of MHSAA executive director in the spring of 1986, I was asked about my administrative philosophies and approaches to problem solving.  I don’t recall now all I said then, but I do clearly remember saying I would “err in favor of kids.”  I meant that, when a difficult situation presented an unclear choice, I would give the benefit of doubt to kids.

That was somewhat naïve, I suppose; but I still do bring that mindset to situations that appear to be a toss-up.

Over the years I’ve stumbled upon or consciously cultivated other lessons for myself, and I have shared some of them with my dedicated colleagues at the MHSAA.  Of many, here’s the first of six (the other five will be presented in subsequent blogs):  Consider those not in the room or not at the table.

When people propose a change in a rule, consider where they are coming from, and consider those who are not present who may have different circumstances, perspectives and needs.

If the proposal is from large schools, consider how it might affect small schools.  If from southern schools, how it might affect northern schools.  If from suburban schools, how it might affect urban or rural.  If from football coaches, how it might affect other sports; if from a winter sport, how it might affect fall or spring sports.

When people seek from the Executive Committee waiver of a particular rule on behalf of one student, ask how that waiver would affect those not present against whom this student would compete.

When someone seeks relief from a penalty, ask how that will affect those not present, including those who have received the penalty in the past or should receive the penalty in the future.

Considering those who are not in the room who may be affected by a proposal by those who are in the room has been a gift given to me by Keith Eldred of Williamston who served on the Representative Council over 25 years ending in 2008.