Logo

Hit Again

April 1, 2013

Education reform needs a Mulligan.  A do-over.  The opportunity to go back to “Go” and start over.  For example . . .

  • Back to a time before the attack on neighborhood schools closed those schools and contributed to neighborhood collapse and community disconnect.

  • Before suburban schools were allowed to prey on and profit from an urban school’s misfortunes.

  • Before large buses lumbered down narrow residential lanes to transport our littlest learners from the shadow of their local school to another across town, where all the other littlest students were gathered for more “cost-effective” education.

  • Before schools shuffled off low-achieving students to alternative schools in order to elevate their ranking on standardized test scores.

  • Before teachers based their lessons more on test preparation than learning.

  • Before education re-segregated through specialized charter schools with non-inclusive curricula.

  • Before public schools were barred from beginning their instructional days before Labor Day, or whenever their community thought it best for the education of its students.

  • Back to a time when pedagogy more than politics planned and delivered education.

 Let’s tee it up and hit again.

Stacking

December 19, 2014

Many in the interscholastic tennis community of this state have complained for years about the unethical practices of a small number of coaches who “stack” their lineups so that their better players compete in lower flights to increase their chances of success in advancing and earning points for their teams.

The current meet scoring system, which fails to reward teams for placing players at the highest levels, invites the problem. Appealing to personal integrity works with most coaches, but not all; so the issue of stacking festers, and it frustrates many coaches.

Hearing this pain, in 2009 the MHSAA convened a group of tennis coaches to discuss stacking. We utilized a paid professional facilitator. One obvious outcome was very little support to solve the problem by restructuring the tennis meet scoring system to disincentivize stacking.

The simple solution – to modify the meet scoring system to provide more team points for Number 1 singles than Number 2, and for Number 2 more than Number 3, etc. – was a double fault with the clear majority of the coaches assembled in 2009.

Of course, simple solutions rarely are so simple. And with this scoring system solution comes the likelihood that stronger teams move even further out of reach of their challengers. Other critics are uncomfortable with giving one student-athlete a higher potential team point value than another.

If those and other objections are the prevailing sentiment, then a new scoring system won’t be in our future. And stacking still will be.