Tournament Talk
December 30, 2013
As educators reconsider the grade level that school sports will begin to serve younger students and tweak the contest limitations for junior high/middle school students, they will not be able to avoid tournament talk.
Although middle school and even elementary school tournaments exist in many states, only a very small number of our constituents in Michigan promote the idea of statewide tournaments for junior high/middle school students.
A larger group of our constituents sees a place for MHSAA sponsored and conducted tournaments confined to smaller geographic areas. Something special – different than a regular-season event – but nothing spectacular. Modest travel and trophies.
A still larger group opposes this idea. Some people are opposed on a philosophical or educational basis – e.g., that it’s too early an age to promote competition to this extent and likely to interfere with the educational mission of schools. Other people oppose these regional tournaments for financial reasons – lacking adequate funds to fully fund high school programs, they cannot fathom how more funds can be spent on an expanded junior high/middle school sports program.
It is hard to see any increased expenditure on junior high/middle school sports – on programs for students before the 7th and 8th grades or for more contests for 7th- and 8th-graders – as an investment in the future of high school sports; but it is. The earlier we grab the attention of students and their parents and the more we expose them to the pure purposes and educational philosophies of school sports, the healthier our high school programs will be.
It is in the broad, deep roots of junior high/middle school programs that the branches of high school sports will flourish.
Transfers
January 10, 2017
When it comes to transfers, the staff of the Michigan High School Athletic Association gets lots of advice, but it comes from opposing directions.
One camp thinks MHSAA rules are inadequate. This group suggests that we expand the basic period of ineligibility from approximately 90 days to 180 days and/or it wants the MHSAA to eliminate most or all exceptions that allow for immediate eligibility of a transfer student.
This first camp is so frustrated with high-profile athletic-motivated or related transfers that they want to clamp down on all transfers.
The other camp thinks parents have the right and responsibility to send their children to any school they wish and have immediate access to the full benefits of that school’s curricular and extracurricular offerings.
This second camp is encouraged by the laws of Michigan which have gradually extended “schools of choice” as an option that all school districts may exercise. And this camp will be emboldened if the Secretary of Education under the new regime in Washington, D.C. is the long-time schools of choice advocate who has been nominated by the President-Elect for this position.
This second camp is on the right side of history, no matter how much I dislike it and no matter how convinced I am that the better way to have improved public education would have been to invest more in neighborhood schools. Improving them builds most communities. Ignoring them, as we have for 25 years, sends surrounding communities into downward spirals that worsen poverty and public health.
The ill-advised efforts to improve education by enticing students out of their neighborhoods to attend schools elsewhere has undermined “local ownership” in schools; and it has had the side effect of encouraging more transfers motivated by or related to athletics. Monitoring and managing such transfers is made more difficult by these educational reforms; but the new world will not tolerate transfer rules that are seen as too broad and contrary to what has become public policy, however poorly conceived and executed.
The fact is, the future of the transfer rule will be less about extending its reach and more about retaining its existence.