Logo

On the Move

June 8, 2012

Two members of the MHSAA’s executive staff live on the same side of the same town.  Each lives less than a five-minute drive to the MHSAA building; and yet they live in differently named neighborhoods, taking the names of the public elementary schools which serve their sections of town and the school district.

Students of those two elementary schools feed the one and only public middle school of the district, which feeds the one and only public high school of the district.  Historically, there would not be too much to deter the children raised in these two homes from attending the same schools.

However, if one of the families is Catholic, it might choose to send its children to the Catholic grade school located across the street from the public high school.  And it might decide to send its children to high school at the Catholic high school in the town which neighbors to the west.

If one of the families were inclined, it might choose to home school its children before sending them to the district’s high school or to one of two Christian high schools nearby.

Or perhaps one of the families would choose to send one of their children to a charter school near the location of the mother’s employment.  Perhaps another child would be a school of choice student at a traditional high school convenient to the father’s place of work but in a different school district.  These are common occurrences today that were rare just 15 years ago.

A multitude of other factors could affect the choice of school:

  • One school might be better known than others for a particular curriculum strength, or it might have a strong reputation in drama or music or sports, or in one particular sport.
  • Children are more likely today to have mingled on non-school youth sports teams and to decide to stay together for high school teams.
  • High school students might attend the same summer camps and be attracted to a different group of kids or a coach, and transfer to join the new group or coach.
  • As families relocate more frequently, students are required to transfer; and as the nuclear family becomes less stable, students are more often forced to change domestic settings, and change schools.

These and other factors – some worthy or unavoidable, some unhealthy and contrived – add up to the following:

  • During the entire 1986-87 school year, the MHSAA Executive Committee processed 96 requests by member schools to waive eligibility rules, and 58 of those requests were for student transfers.
  • 25 years later, the total requests for the school year were 462; and of those, 337 were to waive the transfer section of the eligibility regulation.

This demonstrates in numbers what we have observed to be true:  that during the past quarter century, the clientele of high school athletics has become five times more mobile.  It’s one of school sports’ greatest challenges.

Robust Benefits

February 6, 2015

Here are some research-based opinions that track with the personal experiences of most of us who have given our careers to educational athletics. The words are those of Kevin Kniffen, who teaches leadership and management at Cornell University (from NYTimes.com [Oct. 22, 2014]):

“Research shows that people who play high school sports get better jobs, with better pay. Benefits that last a lifetime.


“Those lessons presumably help to account for the findings that people who played for a varsity high school team tend to earn relatively higher salaries later in life. Research to which I contributed, complementing previous studies, showed that people who played high school sports tend to get better jobs, with better pay, and that those benefits last a lifetime.

“Hiring managers expect former student-athletes (compared with people who participate in other popular extracurriculars) to have more self-confidence, self-respect and leadership; actual measures of behavior in a sample of people who had graduated from high school more than five decades earlier showed those expectations proved accurate.

“We also found that former student-athletes tend to donate time and money more frequently than people who weren't part of teams.

“In other words, there are clear and robust individual and societal benefits that appear to be generated through the current system of school support for participation in competitive youth athletics.

“With respect to whether youth athletics should be part of educational institutions, it’s certainly true that there’s no necessary relationship between the two; but, what would happen if schools were to drop all of their interscholastic sports programs?

“Any policymakers who took such action would effectively be privatizing – and, in turn, limiting – an important set of opportunities that schools presently provide in a significantly more democratic and open fashion than likely alternatives would. Beyond raising a basic barrier for anyone to gain the kinds of experiences that appear to be rewarded in the workplace, the privatization of competitive youth sports would also create the largest barriers – and cause the greatest long-term losses – for those whose families are not able to bear the costs of participation outside of the public school system.”