Pilot Programs 2.0
May 10, 2016
Two sideline concussion detection pilot programs launched with 62 schools at the start of the 2015-16 school year will continue in 2016-17, with several significant modifications.
For the upcoming school year, a smaller number of schools will be invited to participate, training will be both earlier and longer, and the focus will be on those sports which the MHSAA’s mandated concussion reporting by all high schools has identified as having the highest risk for head injuries.
The primary purpose for the MHSAA to initiate, drive and monitor these pilot programs is to emphasize the removal-from-play phase of the concussion care continuum, and to encourage more care, consistency and courage during that decision-making process.
Data from the most recent fall and winter seasons tends to demonstrate that schools in the pilot programs reported more concussions than non-pilot schools and they withheld students from activity longer than schools which did not participate in the pilot programs.
These tendencies are supported by both systems being tested, King-Devick and XLNTbrain, both of which have significant improvements in store for pilot schools in 2016-17.
The purpose of the pilot programs is not to select a single system to be recommended to or required of all MHSAA member schools, but to demonstrate to vendors how to serve the needs of our diverse constituency and to help our schools serve their student-athletes better. Further progress toward these purposes is a certainty during 2016-17.
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.