• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Case Against High School Sports

Strickland33

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
32,441
Reaction score
8,183
Location
la
As someone who benefited from playing high school sports, I don't agree with all of this, but it brings up a lot of interesting points.

The history is really interesting, too. I'll post some of my favorite parts below.

"The Case Against High-School Sports" by Amanda Ripley:

Sports are embedded in American schools in a way they are not almost anywhere else. Yet this difference hardly ever comes up in domestic debates about America’s international mediocrity in education. (The U.S. ranks 31st on the same international math test.) The challenges we do talk about are real ones, from undertrained teachers to entrenched poverty. But what to make of this other glaring reality, and the signal it sends to children, parents, and teachers about the very purpose of school?

When I surveyed about 200 former exchange students last year, in cooperation with an international exchange organization called AFS, nine out of 10 foreign students who had lived in the U.S. said that kids here cared more about sports than their peers back home did. A majority of Americans who’d studied abroad agreed.

Even in eighth grade, American kids spend more than twice the time Korean kids spend playing sports, according to a 2010 study published in the Journal of Advanced Academics. In countries with more-holistic, less hard-driving education systems than Korea’s, like Finland and Germany, many kids play club sports in their local towns—outside of school. Most schools do not staff, manage, transport, insure, or glorify sports teams, because, well, why would they?

...

As states and districts continue to slash education budgets, as more kids play on traveling teams outside of school, and as the globalized economy demands that children learn higher-order skills so they can compete down the line, it’s worth reevaluating the American sporting tradition. If sports were not central to the mission of American high schools, then what would be?

An anecdote:

Last year in Texas, whose small towns are the spiritual home of high-school football and the inspiration for Friday Night Lights, the superintendent brought in to rescue one tiny rural school district did something insanely rational. In the spring of 2012, after the state threatened to shut down Premont Independent School District for financial mismanagement and academic failure, Ernest Singleton suspended all sports—including football.

To cut costs, the district had already laid off eight employees and closed the middle-school campus, moving its classes to the high-school building; the elementary school hadn’t employed an art or a music teacher in years; and the high school had sealed off the science labs, which were infested with mold. Yet the high school still turned out football, basketball, volleyball, track, tennis, cheerleading, and baseball teams each year.

Football at Premont cost about $1,300 a player. Math, by contrast, cost just $618 a student. For the price of one football season, the district could have hired a full-time elementary-school music teacher for an entire year. But, despite the fact that Premont’s football team had won just one game the previous season and hadn’t been to the playoffs in roughly a decade, this option never occurred to anyone.

...

That first semester, 80 percent of the students passed their classes, compared with 50 percent the previous fall. About 160 people attended parent-teacher night, compared with six the year before. Principal Ruiz was so excited that he went out and took pictures of the parking lot, jammed with cars. Through some combination of new leadership, the threat of closure, and a renewed emphasis on academics, Premont’s culture changed. “There’s been a definite decline in misbehavior,” says Desiree Valdez, who teaches speech, theater, and creative writing at Premont. “I’m struggling to recall a fight. Before, it was one every couple of weeks.”

Suspending sports was only part of the equation, but Singleton believes it was crucial. He used the savings to give teachers raises. Meanwhile, communities throughout Texas, alarmed by the cancellation of football, raised $400,000 for Premont via fund-raisers and donations—money that Singleton put toward renovating the science labs.

No one knew whether the state would make good on its threat to shut the district down. But for the first time in many years, Premont had a healthy operating balance and no debt. This past spring, the school brought back baseball, track, and tennis, with the caveat that the teams could participate in just one travel tournament a season. “Learning is going on in 99 percent of the classrooms now,” Coach Russell told me, “compared to 2 percent before.”

Some selections from the end:

In many schools, sports are so entrenched that no one—not even the people in charge—realizes their actual cost. When Marguerite Roza, the author of Educational Economics, analyzed the finances of one public high school in the Pacific Northwest, she and her colleagues found that the school was spending $328 a student for math instruction and more than four times that much for cheerleading—$1,348 a cheerleader. “And it is not even a school in a district that prioritizes cheerleading,” Roza wrote. “In fact, this district’s ‘strategic plan’ has for the past three years claimed that math was the primary focus.”

Many sports and other electives tend to have lower student-to-teacher ratios than math and reading classes, which drives up the cost. And contrary to what most people think, ticket and concession sales do not begin to cover the cost of sports in the vast majority of high schools (or colleges).

Football is, far and away, the most expensive high-school sport. Many football teams have half a dozen or more coaches, all of whom typically receive a stipend. Some schools hire professional coaches at full salaries, or designate a teacher as the full-time athletic director. New bleachers can cost half a million dollars, about the same as artificial turf. Even maintaining a grass field can cost more than $20,000 a year. Reconditioning helmets, a ritual that many teams pay for every year, can cost more than $1,500 for a large team. Some communities collect private donations or levy a special tax to fund new school-sports facilities.

Many of the costs are insidious, Roza has found, “buried in unidentifiable places.” For example, when teacher-coaches travel for game days, schools need to hire substitute teachers. They also need to pay for buses for the team, the band, and the cheerleaders, not to mention meals and hotels on the road. For home games, schools generally cover the cost of hiring officials, providing security, painting the lines on the field, and cleaning up afterward. “Logistics are a big challenge,” says Jared Bigham, until recently the supervising principal of two schools in Copperhill, Tennessee, and a former teacher, coach, and player. “Even though the coaches are in charge of the budgets, I still have to oversee them and approve each expenditure. You’re looking at 10 different budgets you have to manage.”

That kind of constant, low-level distraction may be the greatest cost of all. During football season in particular, the focus of American principals, teachers, and students shifts inexorably away from academics. Sure, high-school football players spend long, exhausting hours practicing (and according to one study, about 15 percent experience a brain injury each season), but the commitment extends to the rest of the community, from late-night band practices to elaborate pep rallies to meetings with parents. Athletics even dictate the time that school starts each day: despite research showing that later start times improve student performance, many high schools begin before 8 a.m., partly to reserve afternoon daylight hours for sports practice.

American principals, unlike the vast majority of principals around the world, make many hiring decisions with their sports teams in mind—a calculus that does not always end well for students. “Every school in the entire country has done this,” Marcia Gregorio, a veteran teacher in rural Pennsylvania, told me. “You hire a teacher, and you sometimes lower the standards because you need a coach.”

But here’s the thing: most American principals I spoke with expressed no outrage over the primacy of sports in school. In fact, they fiercely defended it. “If I could wave a magic wand, I’d have more athletic opportunities for students, not less,” Bigham, the former Tennessee principal, told me. His argument is a familiar one: sports can be bait for students who otherwise might not care about school. “I’ve seen truancy issues completely turned around once students begin playing sports,” he says. “When students have a sense of belonging, when they feel tied to the school, they feel more part of the process.”

...

In these communities, the dominant argument is usually that sports lure students into school and keep them out of trouble—the same argument American educators have made for more than a century. And it remains relevant, without a doubt, for some small portion of students.

But at this moment in history, now that more than 20 countries are pulling off better high-school-graduation rates than we are, with mostly nominal athletic offerings, using sports to tempt kids into getting an education feels dangerously old-fashioned. America has not found a way to dramatically improve its children’s academic performance over the past 50 years, but other countries have—and they are starting to reap the economic benefits.

...

Imagine, for a moment, if Americans transferred our obsessive intensity about high-school sports—the rankings, the trophies, the ceremonies, the pride—to high-school academics. We would look not so different from South Korea, or Japan, or any of a handful of Asian countries whose hypercompetitive, pressure-cooker approach to academics in many ways mirrors the American approach to sports. Both approaches can be dysfunctional; both set kids up for stress and disappointment. The difference is that 93 percent of South Korean students graduate from high school, compared with just 77 percent of American students—only about 2 percent of whom receive athletic scholarships to college.

As it becomes easier and more urgent to compare what kids around the world know and can do, more schools may follow Premont’s lead. Basis public charter schools, located in Arizona, Texas, and Washington, D.C., are modeled on rigorous international standards. They do not offer tackle football; the founders deemed it too expensive and all-consuming. Still, Basis schools offer other, cheaper sports, including basketball and soccer. Anyone who wants to play can play; no one has to try out. Arizona’s mainstream league is costly to join, so Basis Tucson North belongs to an alternative league that costs less and requires no long-distance travel, meaning students rarely miss class for games. Athletes who want to play at an elite level do so on their own, through club teams—not through school.

Basis teachers channel the enthusiasm usually found on football fields into academic conquests. On the day of Advanced Placement exams, students at Basis Tucson North file into the classroom to “Eye of the Tiger,” the Rocky III theme song. In 2012, 15-year-olds at two Arizona Basis schools took a new test designed to compare individual schools’ performance with that of schools from around the world. The average Basis student not only outperformed the typical American student by nearly three years in reading and science and by four years in math, but outscored the average student in Finland, Korea, and Poland as well. The Basis kid did better even than the average student from Shanghai, China, the region that ranks No. 1 in the world.
 
Gregg Easterbrook (Tuesday Morning Quarterback) has a good column in this month's Atlantic, too.
 
it's absolutely a problem. This nation's perception and priorities are so fucked
 
For sure, but I had a lot of great experiences in high school athletics. I was undisciplined, unmotivated kid who had gotten by on raw talent (and punk rock) for most of my life. Playing varsity soccer, wrestling, track, etc. were really essential to my development.

Without high school sports, I wouldn't have ever looked at colleges outside of the southeast (or found my alma mater), and I probably wouldn't have ever found my passion in the social sciences (that I picked up during my first year in college). I had similarly formative experiences in religious institutions and from select teachers in high school, but athletics were essential.

That being said, I really love this article because of its ambition. It's advocating for a paradigm shift, showing how 1) the taken-for-granted in how American approach high school is EXTREMELY different from other countries and 2) it's not working out particularly well for us in terms of achievement, particularly in less privileged communities.

There is not much empirical evidence, which makes me suspicious as to whether this is the answer, but the evidence it does give is really intriguing and convincing.

I'm close to being convinced, but I'm also interested to see the dialogue that the article spawns.
 
It the Tech School vs Liberal Arts argument. Do you want kids to be super focused on education, or let them have experiences other than book learning.

I think we all agree that the Korean model of 12+ hours of studying a day isn't something that we should strive for.
 
I was absolutely a better student when playing sports and sports were the one place that I had significant interaction with people that were different than me.
 
There are many studies that show kids that play HS sports (particularly girls) are more likely to get higher grades, go to college, stay out of trouble and not get pregnant. I have kids in HS, Middle School and Elementary School, and they would be bored as hell and getting into bad things if not participating in sports. This is a slightly different angle on the points above as I think that one focus of the article is the allocation of eduation resources in the US is too skewed to sports as compared to other countries, which is arguable, but totally disagree that participation in sports correlates to lower academic achievement.

Also, I don't see a major difference between a HS kid devoting a large chunk of his/her time to sports versus playing the violin. Something tells me that devoting time to the arts (or other activities that are considered an outside school activity in the US) is considered part of the school curriculum in many countries, while sports is not in those countries. So, some of the stats in the article may not be making an apples to apples comparison.
 
Last edited:
The more activities for kids, the better, particularly those without a strong home life. Whether extracurricular or not, activities like sports and arts teach valuable lessons and provide fun ways for kids to spend time. And I echo the sentiment that your grades go up the busier you are with sports, etc. It demands you focus during the time you have for academic studies. There is no reason for high school kids to waste hours in front of video games or the TV when they could do these things.
 
In sports, success is expected. You prepare for it. Failure is taught to be dealt with by coaches and teammates. Sal. Khan, founder of Khan Academy, told the story of the difference between his teacher and his wrestling coach. Both taught, but the coach would make you workout knowing that it would make you better. When he went up against other wrestlers, he appreciated the extra work his coach made him do. His teacher was also the examiner and judge. his relationship with the teacher was more adversarial. Sports gave him a taste of success and his outlook on education change to look at his teacher as a coach. He has 3 degrees from MIT to show for his hard work.
 
In sports, success is expected. You prepare for it. Failure is taught to be dealt with by coaches and teammates. Sal. Khan, founder of Khan Academy, told the story of the difference between his teacher and his wrestling coach. Both taught, but the coach would make you workout knowing that it would make you better. When he went up against other wrestlers, he appreciated the extra work his coach made him do. His teacher was also the examiner and judge. his relationship with the teacher was more adversarial. Sports gave him a taste of success and his outlook on education change to look at his teacher as a coach. He has 3 degrees from MIT to show for his hard work.

O Rly? Musta been wrestling mathletes. I think I could take him.

images
 
It's a thought-provoking article. Two things that haven't been mentioned in this thread:

1. Per the article, kids in other countries play sports plenty, but their teams are not funded through or sponsored by the school systems. So if a German kid's parents want her to play sports, it's not like she is going to be forever denied these coaching relationships or character-forming experiences. But it's also not going to lead to a situation where every Thursday your social studies teacher/football coach takes a whole class period (or more than one) down to the stadium so the guys can line the field and the girls can gossip in the stands (this actually happened in my high school all football season every year). I'm sure most of us have stories where instructional time was hijacked in the service of high school football.

2. One thing that is apples to oranges is the outsize role of football in America. The equipment, coaches, stadiums, support, and focus are WAY beyond anything required for any other sport commonly played around the world. The primacy and expense of football in and of itself could be isolated as a significant suck of education resources. You notice that several of the schools discussed in the article eliminated all sports and then gradually added back the cheaper ones, but not football.
 
O Rly? Musta been wrestling mathletes. I think I could take him.

images

Heard him tell the story on Charlie Rose. He looked more manly sitting next to a tarhole. Wrestling is the only place were you won't get locked up for beating up a 90 pounder.
 
The Koreans and presumably other Asian countries absolutely do have sports in school. They just kind of segregate the more rigorous students from those who aren't. I remember we had to wrestle some kids in HS from the local Korean wrestling school. We were high schoolers and these kids looked like they were anywhere between 6th and 9th grade. Kids with cauliflower ear who came out doing backflips and shit after we did our jumping jacks.

Our problems at this point are well beyond football. We've had a school system cranking out idiots for years, and many idiots become teachers so it's self-perpetuating by now. That isn't to take away from many of the great teachers out there. Also, Asian cultures by and large put a high value on education, whereas we have entire communities that simply don't give a fuck.
 
I can absolutely tell the assholes that I run into in the business world and life that have never played team sports. Learning team work and how to get up off of your asss, and go again is invaluable.
 
Heard him tell the story on Charlie Rose. He looked more manly sitting next to a tarhole. Wrestling is the only place were you won't get locked up for beating up a 90 pounder.

Charlie Rose went to Duke.
 
I've held the position for several years now that high school sports are pretty stupid. Physical education should be included as part of the school day. Kids can play in organized leagues after school. Kids can't tell you what country the US gained its independence from, but parents raise money to build a bigger football stadium, assuming the school board doesn't ask for the money in a bond referendum.

Additionally, with urban and suburban high schools in NC ballooning to 3,000 students, how many kids can even benefit from the taxes that support these high school sports? Not nearly enough to justify the financial expense hours of attention spent by administrations.
 
Back
Top