Turnover
October 21, 2016
Turnover in local leadership is one of the biggest challenges facing all of youth sports, and it’s partly responsible for the disconnect between the policies of state or national sports organizations and the actual practices of local programs. It is beginning to occur almost as rapidly in school sports as non-school youth sports programs, eroding yet another advantage that school-sponsored programs have enjoyed over non-school programs (other examples being that participation in school sports has generally been less expensive for families, and school coaches more often have been trained educators).
Turnover not only challenges local schools, it causes, or at least contributes to, many of the challenges the Michigan High School Athletic Association faces – everything from administering the transfer rule to conducting District and Regional tournaments.
One of every seven MHSAA member high schools has an athletic director this year who has not served in that role for at least the past five years. Each of these 108 new ADs attended a required orientation program at the MHSAA office in late summer. We provide a follow-up program in November.
More than 80 athletic department administrative assistants or secretaries attended a session at the MHSAA office in September. MHSAA staff conducts a second session for this appreciative audience every March during the Michigan Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association conference in Traverse City.
MHSAA Athletic Director In-Service programs are conducted at several league meetings during late summer and in conjunction with most MHSAA Update meetings across the state during September and October. Attendance will exceed 500 persons.
Given the increasing complexity of life and the effect on school sports, more needs to be done. Our next efforts may include quick electronic tutorials to help coaches, athletic directors, principals and superintendents keep abreast of what is most important in school-sponsored, student-centered sports.
Bad Choice
September 11, 2015
From our vantage point, we saw years ago that “choice” was disrupting schools more than it was improving them, and hindering more than enhancing the academic accomplishments of students.
What we saw years ago was that choice was more often exercised for adults’ convenience – to schools closer to child care or parents’ jobs – than for students’ academic improvement. Studies now tend to prove that observation is correct.
We also saw years ago that choice was mostly a chain reaction of prickly people. Students or their parents unhappy with their local school for one reason or another would move to a nearby school where, simultaneously, unhappy people would be moving from there to another nearby school. Studies now show that about half of choice students return to where they began; whether or not they ever accept that the fault was their own and not the fault of the first school is more difficult to discern.
In July, Michigan State University reported some of the most recent research about, and some of the faintest praise for, school of choice; but because previous studies have demonstrated that students’ learning diminishes as their mobility increases, there should have been much more scrutiny of Michigan’s school of choice policy when it was introduced 20 years ago, and as it has spread to 80 percent of Michigan school districts since 1994.
As a means of improving schools, choice has failed by making poor schools worse. As a means of integrating schools, choice and charter schools have actually re-segregated schools. And as a means of destroying neighborhoods, choice has been the perfect weapon.
You want to rebuild Michigan? Then start with neighborhoods, at the center of which will be a grocery store and a school, both within walking distance for their patrons who are invested in them.
School of choice has created problems for administrators of school sports. But what’s far worse is the damage it has done and continues to do to our students, schools and society.