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.
Integrated Learning
July 1, 2016
One of the positive aspects of life that school sports and other after-school activities do better than most everything else is to build a sense of community. Another is to teach teamwork. And both are mostly missing in the world of individualized, online learning.
It sounds good to advocate for personalized, learn-at-your-own-pace “curriculum” (one can hardly call it “instruction”), but that model misses so much of what education is supposed to help a civilized society accomplish.
Benjamin Riley, founder and executive director of Deans for Impact (deansforimpact.org), makes this point in his May 18, 2016, Opinion on EdSurge (edsurge.com), “Bursting the ‘Personalization’ Bubble: An Alternative Vision for Our Public Schools.” Mr. Riley advances four principles:
-
Teachers – not technology – should be the primary designers of students’ learning experiences.
-
The experiences that teachers design should emphasize the social aspect of learning.
-
The experiences that teachers design should be informed by learning science.
-
Teachers should primarily use technology to identify social learning opportunities.
Mr. Riley concedes that these four principles are just a sketch – an outline for a different conversation than that which currently dominates education reform. “But there is one point on which I’m unyielding,” Riley writes: “We begin to forge the character of our country in our public schools. At a time when I feel our nation pulling further apart, I hope we start thinking and talking more about how we might move closer together, and promote the integration – rather than the personalization – of our learning experiences in public education.”
It is not Mr. Riley’s point, but it is mine, that school sports – including the requirement that participants be full-time students in the schools they represent on interscholastic sports teams – promotes the integration of the learning experience which is critical to shaping the character of our country.
The integration we speak of is developing the whole child through direct interaction daily with a diverse student body and a wide variety of curricular and extracurricular activities. This builds students, schools and society.