Logo

Tough Love

October 9, 2015

A young Korean woman has lived with my wife and me for two years and will for two years longer. Grace is a graduate of the international school in China where our son and his wife were her teachers; and since living with us, she has graduated from Lansing Community College and moved on to Michigan State University.

Having this student in our home and a son and daughter-in-law as educators in China, living with my wife who once was in charge of refugee resettlement for a large agency in mid-Michigan, and my serving for seven years as president of the board of the Refugee Development Center in Lansing, makes me understanding of and sympathetic to international students.

However, I expect that is not the reputation I enjoy among those who work for student exchange organizations and even among some in our schools who work with the increasing number of international students who are enrolling in Michigan’s secondary schools. They probably view me as an advocate for more restrictive transfer rules for international students, especially regarding F-1 visa students and nonpublic schools.

Guilty as charged. Indeed, I do advocate for higher standards for exchange programs, more vigorous oversight of student placements and more equal application of rules, regardless of the type of visa the student has or the type of school in which that student enrolls.

It is because I see great value in our interaction with people from other nations that I want to assure international student exchanges remain popular in our schools. Nothing jeopardizes the future of international student exchange more than sloppy or shady placements of international students, including last-minute dumping of students by agencies, athletic-related direct placements by agents, and school districts loading up on international students as backfill for declining local enrollments.

As some youth escape brutal hardship in war-torn or impoverished countries and more well-off foreign students stampede to the U.S. to attend U.S. secondary schools, colleges and universities, it will require high doses of tough love. If problems related to athletics increase, so will the chances that all international students will lose all opportunities to participate in varsity level sports in this state.

Classes or Divisions

April 4, 2014

Never is the continuous cycle of school sports more obvious to me than at this time of year. Just as winter tournaments conclude for 2013-14, we post the classifications and divisions for MHSAA tournaments in 2014-15.

Unlike many states which reclassify every two, three or four years, we collect enrollment figures each year and redraw the lines between Classes A, B, C and D each year in late March. And for all sports except basketball and volleyball, we place an almost equal number of schools that actually sponsor the sport into equal divisions – usually four divisions, but fewer for sports that are sponsored by a relatively small number of schools.

This traditional treatment of boys and girls basketball and girls volleyball – continuing with four classes rather than four divisions with an equal number of schools that actually sponsor the sport in each division – reflects that when last considered for change 17 years ago, there wasn’t much difference in the number of schools in the four classes vs. the four equal divisions in these three tournaments.

For 2014-15, of the 749 MHSAA member schools, 724 indicate they sponsor boys basketball, 716 sponsor girls basketball and 704 sponsor girls volleyball. (Among the sports in equal divisions, the most populous is baseball with 630 sponsoring schools.)

Last January, the MHSAA Classification Committee requested that staff provide the Representative Council what the numbers would look like for 2014-15 if these three sports were in “equal divisions” like other sports. The Classification Committee wasn’t recommending any change – just asking that the Representative Council see the numbers again.

  • In boys basketball, the number of schools in Divisions 1, 2, 3 and 4 would be 181, compared to 188, 182, 182 and 172 in Classes A, B, C and D, respectively.
  • In girls basketball, the number of schools in Divisions 1, 2, 3 and 4 would be approximately 179, compared to 186, 181, 182 and 167 in Classes A, B, C and D, respectively.
  • In girls volleyball, the number of schools in Divisions 1, 2, 3 and 4 would be approximately 176, compared to 186, 178, 180 and 160 in Classes A, B, C and D.

Obviously, every time more schools are placed in a division, the enrollment range between the largest and smallest school of that division expands. Therefore, a change to equal divisions places more schools and expands the enrollment range in the division of schools where enrollment spreads have the greatest impact - Division 4. It was our smallest schools that least liked the change to equal divisions in other sports 17 years ago. They would be the dissenters to this change for basketball and volleyball today.