Logo

Global Education

September 10, 2013

More than a dozen years after our second and last son moved permanently from our home, a 19-year-old has moved in. She’s lived in South Korea, the Philippines and China; she graduated from the international school where our son and his wife are educators in China; and she’s attending our local community college.

Aside from having to change some of my ways to accommodate the presence of an unrelated female in my home, this has been an easier adjustment than I had anticipated. And one of the pleasant surprises is how interesting it has been to learn along with our guest about the English language and to see our local customs through her eyes.

When a word is used that she is unfamiliar with, we think up synonyms; when an idiom is used that she hasn’t heard before, we go to various apps on our mobile devices to learn about the origin of the phrase.

The county fair was a whole new experience with her in our company this year. Lake Michigan – a “fresh-water ocean” – was a wonder. The food portions served at restaurants are two or three times what she is accustomed to; but butter and blueberries are delights that disappear quickly from our refrigerator.

What my wife and I are doing is not unique. Literally thousands of families in this state alone open their homes to students from around the world to study in our schools and colleges. These interactions may be our best hope to save our planet from political and/or religious fanaticism around the world.

Michigan’s schools enroll more one-year foreign exchange students than any other state in the US, more than 2,400 during each of 2010, 2011 and 2012. If they are placed through a program listed by the Council on Standards for International Educational Travel (CSIET), these students are immediately eligible for interscholastic athletics, for one academic year, after which they have no eligibility for one academic year.

Of concern to many athletic administrators today is the increase in enrollment of international students outside a one-year foreign exchange program listed by CSIET. These students outnumber foreign exchange students by more than two-to-one in the US.

Our immediate challenge related to this topic is to assure these students are arriving in Michigan without undue influence related to athletics and that no Michigan school uses this pool of students to gain an unfair competitive advantage in interscholastic athletics.

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.