What's Become Clear

In preparation for a presentation on school change that I was doing recently I was going back through my material and came across the work, Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading by Marty Linsky and Ron Heifetz.

Their work is really good stuff, and if you haven’t read it I would highly recommend it. Their work has always been pertinent and right on target, but I think it is especially relevant at this point in time. The most important point for me is a quote that they used about technical solutions versus adaptive challenges.

Technical solutions are the things that we  already know how to do. We apply those solutions when there is disequilibrium  (their term) in the system. For those of us in education we would call those solutions best practice. Those are the things we have been working really hard on for the last 15 years. And we’re really good at them now. In fact were probably doing the best job of what we’ve always done, that we’ve ever done.

The problem arises when doing what you’ve always done, regardless of how well you’re doing it, either isn’t good enough, or isn’t the right thing to be doing. Linsky and Heifetz call them “adaptive challenges.” Adaptive challenges require that we learn new ways, not simply get better at the old ways.

I believe that we are absolutely facing adaptive challenges. That we are going to have to change what we have kids know and do, change the educational experiences where they learn them, and change how we organize for those learning experiences.  Their quote about the mistakes leaders make applies to us today in education.

“Indeed, the single most common source of leadership failure we’ve been able to identify … is that people, especially those in positions of authority, treat adaptive challenges like technical problems.” - Heifetz and Linskey

I think that we  our treating adaptive challenges like technical problems. That is why, in spite of all of our efforts and success, society still not satisfied with the education our students are receiving. Rural school change will mean figuring out those adaptive challenges in finding new ways to meet them. – Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

During a conversation about school change an individual made the comment that we’d be fine if, “The kids would just bear down and be responsible like they used to be!” Interesting thought. This individual went on to say that students from foreign countries, especially emerging countries, come to America and kick our kids butts in school.

As you might guess, I have a different point of view on this. I think that if our kids got their drinking water from a hole next to their house they would be equally motivated to do what ever it takes to change their station in life. Fortunately this isn’t the case.

In an affluent society such as ours we are never going to return to the student behaviors of the past. It’s incumbent upon us as educators to create a system that meets the needs of society in such a way that it also engages our students as they’ve never been engaged before.

The other day while speaking at the University of Kansas to a group of teachers in the process of obtaining their certification to become building level administrators, I was asked if there has ever been a time in our history that our students were authentically engaged on a regular basis. The answer obviously, is no. But it didn’t matter. Our students were being prepared for a completely different society than we have today.

In fact, that’s part of our problem. We are still preparing students for a world of factories and mass production. A world where the most important skill was compliance. If you want to succeed in today’s schools, be very compliant, and act like you care. Guaranteed success.

Unfortunately, graduating from that system doesn’t guarantee success in life. In fact being compliant is the path to a job that has, low pay, high potential for being outsourced, or automated using technology.

The school change we need to make needs to be a thoughtful transformation to schools that prepare kids for their future in the 21st century. For us to attempt to make our kids adapt to our schools is utter nonsense! – Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

I just finished Richard Florida’s book Flight Of The Created Class. It’s a compelling book, along with his other book Rise Of The Creative Class, they are a must read for educators. Compelling evidence of the need for school change.

But I was disturbed …  okay I know, that’s nothing new …  that it entirely ignored the role of public education. It completely focused on the need to attract immigrants of all types, but especially immigrants in the creative class. It mentioned education in passing but it’s almost as if Dr. Florida has written off public education. In fact, rarely do I read a book today about society in the 21st century that there isn’t a discussion about overcoming the effects of education received in America.

From Dr. Florida’s viewpoint why would anyone assume that public education could produce students equipped for the creative class. Our entire focus is on raising standardized test scores, and our strategies almost completely ignore any practice that would foster and nurture creativity and innovation.

If public school educators don’t get their heads out we will become completely irrelevant in terms of preparing our students for their life in the 21st century.

And, in a state like Kansas, if we don’t figure out how to dramatically increase the percentage of our residents who are members of the creative class we, as a state, we will be relegated to second-class status. School change wouldn’t be just nice, it’s an imperative. –  Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

Perhaps it’s a change in leadership or the level of dissatisfaction with public education within the ranks or educators and policy makers may indeed be reaching the tipping point of school change. Our commissioner of education, Dr. Diane DeBacker, is either demonstrating a level of leadership not seen for over two decades, or all of the stars are beginning to line up.

I personally believe she is the right person, at the right time in history. But regardless over the last two months there have been three events that have caught my attention. The first occurred in April when the KSBE voting unanimously to not pursue the next round of Race To The Top, or as I like to call it the march to mediocrity, funds.

The second occurred at the May KSBE meeting where the state Board of Education voted unanimously to create an educational commission to:

On May 13, 2010, the Kansas State Board of Education authorized the formation of the Kansas Education Commission to examine the framework for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Reauthorization of ESEA, as outlined in the Blueprint for Reform released in March 2010, will set the direction for education in the United States for years to come. The Kansas Education Commission is the state’s strategic approach to reauthorization and educational change.

The third event occurred  in early June when the governor of Kansas signed an executive order creating a panel called The Kansas Commission On Graduation And Droppedout Prevention And Recovery. Interestingly, the governor took this action without knowledge of the Kansas State Board of Education.

So if you’re connecting the dots it appears that policymakers and political leaders may be serious about school change. In the spirit of open disclosure I have been appointed to KSBEs Education Commission. I am truly excited about the opportunity. I will be very disappointed if this is an exercise, as the politicians say, in putting lipstick on a pig. –  Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

Friday I had the distinct pleasure of listening to a panel discussion by educators from Erie Kansas about real school change. Mike Carson, Ted Hill, Rose Frye, and Steve Oliver engaged in a wonderful webcast that lasted over an hour and a half, talking about project-based learning. The most encouraging thing about the webcast was that it dealt with education, and a better way of organizing and running schools to better meet the needs of the students, even though the discussion was prompted by declining resources and the need to dramatically cut costs in schools.

So why the title over under? Well, an over-under or over/under bet is a wager in which a sports book will predict a number for a statistic in a given game usually the combined score of the two teams. I wonder what the over under is for the total number of schools that will change to a project-based curriculum even though it is more effective, and more efficient in educating our children.

I think it will take three major skills on the part of superintendents to pull off what Erie high school has pulled off.
1. It will require great courage on the part of the superintendent to lead this change.  It is a political hot potato to change what we’ve always done in schools regardless of how dismal the current results are.
2. It will require great vision on the part of school leaders. We have been doing what we do in schools for so long that it is almost part of an educator’s DNA. Having a vision, and having the ability to share the vision will be critical.
3. It will required great leadership skill. Making this kind of change will take skills that are rarely called upon to run an existing school district.

So what do I think the over and under will be? One. I just don’t see evidence of leaders who have the combination of courage, vision, and leadership to pull it off. I hope I’m wrong. I truly believe that this could be a tremendous solution to a tremendous problem. Only time will tell if we can make the real school change necessary. –  Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

Rural schools may be an endangered species. I’ve written many times that I believe that our model in public schools for educating kids is obsolete.  I’ve also written that our goals in public schools are also all wrong. But if we are going to persist in that model then it will take a great deal more money in order to succeed. Unfortunately, especially for rural schools, we are in an era of declining revenue sources not increasing revenue sources.

So what do I see happening? The very existence of many rural schools is being threatened.  You can do the math. In the current model you have a minimum number of teachers necessary to maintain the system regardless of how few kids you have. You must have a teacher in each of the core curriculum areas and also teachers in the areas where students are required to earn credits.

There seems to be a minimum of about 10 professionals in a building to maintain it as a high school in the current system. With budget cuts many rural schools are approaching the point where, based on student enrollment and budgets per-pupil, they can’t afford the number of teachers necessary to cover all the required areas.

So consolidation becomes the default solution. But in many rural areas consolidation may mean closing schools and sending kids to neighboring towns. Unfortunately, those trips to neighboring towns may mean that kids are on a bus more than an hour one way. For the little kids this is unsatisfactory. For the older kids, many of whom are involved in extra curricular activities, there are a plethora of issues with sending kids that far.

But is there another solution to the problem? I think there is. But it will require us to take a very different approach to how we educate kids. It will require us also to change the mental models that students, parents, citizens, and educators have about how schools should look and operate. And I think the solution will lead to more highly educated students, who are much better prepared to be productive in the 21st century.

My solution, project-based learning. It can be accomplished with fewer teachers, in the case of very small schools perhaps with as few as half the number of teachers.

So how his project-based learning better for kids? My opinion comes from my observations of Erie high school. I believe that those students are receiving an education that is far superior to kids in other schools in terms of preparing them for the 21st century.

So the problems we face today may actually lead to  a more well-educated student population. While there are other solutions that will cut cost and do minimal damage to the current system, I believe that moving to a project-based curriculum is the only solution I’ve seen that will reduce cost and at the same time lead to more well-educated students.

In an era of standardized test mania, student scores may not look as good in project-based learning, although I think there is evidence emerging that project-based learning schools aren’t any worse than test preparation schools in terms of standardized test scores.  But in terms of what students gain; 21st-century skills, individualized and customized education, learning by doing, student engagement, and preparation for heuristic work rather than algorithmic work, there is no doubt that project-based learning is a much better approach. And it costs less to do. –  Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

I asked my good friend Dr. Bill Hagerman, who is superintendent of the Nickerson-South Hutchison school district, if he would write a guest blog post for me. I asked him to write about what’s become clear to him as he returns to the superintendency. Here are his thoughts. -  Steve Wyckoff

The question posed to me, “as a returning superintendent what has become clear to me” has caused me to reflect on two things. What was different about my previous life as a Director for KSDE and my current life as a superintendent, and was I glad I made the change?

When I joined KSDE as director of State and Federal Programs and then Director of Innovation and Improvement, I was glad I made the move. Very little of my direct skills as a superintendent applied to the work that I did as a director at KSDE. However many of the skills as a leader, attitudes toward change and the need for change, did apply. So I worked daily to help change our organization at KSDE and to help provide visionary leadership to consider what we could do differently. The work at KSDE was very different, but the need to supervise people who knew much more about specific programs or specific procedures was no different than coming into a district as superintendent and needing to work with many people who know much more about the district. In both settings there were people who had information that I needed from them. I had to get them to want to help the organization by continuing to do their job and help me get up to speed.

Now as a returning superintendent, I am having my second first year as a superintendent. I have reconnected with many colleagues who are very willing to lend their wisdom and experience – not really a new phenomenon. Superintendents always are willing to help. I also realized how much pressure the latest version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act – NCLB – is putting on schools and districts. When working at KSDE, even though we were at the very forefront of implementing the law, there was no way to be connected to the realities on a daily basis. Now I understand better, those realities such as such as the stress teachers feel who are responsible for a grade level or a content area that is assess; principals who have to decide what to do about serious discipline issues that could affect participation rates, graduation rates, and attendance rates; teachers in non-assessed areas who are worried about programs being cut due to “enrichment classes” being needed; and the list could go on and on.

Finally, what has become most clear to me is the fact that we need to change some things. We need to do a better job in our delivery methods – instructional strategies. While at KSDE, on February 13, 2009, the State Board of Education approved nine policy motions that, when fully implemented will ensure that all students will have challenging academic and technical standards integrated together to address today’s 21^st Century workplace. These policies will eventually change how we do almost everything. Related to this is also one of the biggest concerns I have had and continue to have; how to make sure what we teach and hopefully students learn is relevant, and not just nice to know. Much of what students learn, even though it may lay some sort of foundation, is learned in isolation and the technical application of what the student has learned is rarely evident to the student. So, students get bored, or think that what they are asked to learn is only needed to pass “the test.” In my opinion, if we are ever going to get significantly different results, we are going to have to engage our students in their own learning, or we will continue need more money to get the same or close to the same results.

For these reasons and many others, I am glad I made the change, and I continue to get up each day to work on this challenge. – Bill Hagerman

Tweet This Post

Most people really don’t like change, even though there are those among us who love it. In schools the dislike for change is profound. I think that educators are so resistant to change because we simply rarely change. Anything. Ever. Oh, we see the individual teacher who changes instructional techniques, but if you took somebody who hadn’t been in a school since the 60s and walked them into a high school today, there is nothing about the school that they wouldn’t feel comfortable with.

We do however, see some dramatic systemic change occasionally. And in other instances we see superintendents try to implement real systemic change but abandoned their efforts because of the resistance. So who is most resistant to this change?

I’ve written before (part 1 & part 2) in this space about the “Innovators Dilemma“, a book written by Clayton Christiansen. He describes how disruptive technologies force change. But what I’d like to talk about here is where does the greatest resistance come from when trying to change schools. In other words, who is the change toughest on?

The group that might be the most resistant to change are the parents of the students who are the most successful. Typically these parents themselves were successful in school, and their kids are being very successful in school, and the last thing they want is to change the system that might drop them down the status ladder.

Not surprisingly, the students who are the most successful are also highly resistant to change. Why would they want to stop doing what really works well for them in exchange for something that might work really well for other kids? Several years ago I had an interesting conversation with a young lady who was extremely successful in school. We had done an exercise with a group of students who are all leaders in their schools. They did a great job of identifying the kind of educational experience were the most learning occurred. But she, speaking for the rest of the group, pointed out that that’s not the kind of learning environment she wanted. In the current system she was receiving A’s and the teacher was doing all the work. Why would she want to change?

Another group who are highly resistance to change are young teachers. When I first realized this it was a shock to me. I assumed that young teachers would be much more open to change. After all, we hear all the time how the young are willing to change and the old are set in their ways. It turned out that most young teachers have dreamed of being the teacher in that class that they loved when they were in school. They fantasized about themselves standing in front of the room pontificating to starry eyed students. The last thing they want to do is sabotage their own dream.

The school’s Board of Education usually starts out supporting change but realizes quickly that any patron who attended school knows exactly what a school should look like. And every patron attended school. For some reason we wouldn’t tolerate other aspects of our life not changing. We wouldn’t dream of seeking medical care that was 50 years out of date. Or driving a car like a 63 Chevy. But when it comes to changing schools EVERYBODY knows what school should look like. And they all have a phone, and they all will call a board member.

You may have noticed the absence of veteran teachers from my list. Surprisingly I have a lot of conversations with veteran teachers that know something is wrong. They know our kids are disengaged, that what our kids are learning is irrelevant, and that we aren’t doing a great job of preparing kids for the 21st century. There is very little consensus about what to do, but understanding that something needs to be done is very common.

Last but not least however our high school principals. I have deep empathy for this group. They, along with their assistants, have the toughest job in education. Keeping an obsolete system under control and functioning is more than a full-time job. The thought of changing it at the same time they’re running it is beyond comprehension for most of them. -  Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

I have just begun to read Howard Gardner’s new book Five Minds For The Future. And to my great surprise, I’m being facetious here, in the very first chapter he talks about the inadequacies of our educational system in preparing our kids for their future.

I’m actually not here to talk about his book today, I’ll do that at a later time.  it did prompted my thoughts about kids and their careers. I read two blog posts recently on the KS careers website. One talked about women in construction careers, the other talked about jobs in video gaming. It struck me that what we have traditionally done in schools, and continue to do in schools, does very little to prepare students for these kinds of careers.

These used to be considered nontypical careers. But more and more all careers are becoming nontypical. I often talk about careers in GPS/GIS. A year ago I didn’t even know there were careers in GPS/GIS. Then I visited with my friend, the president of North Central Kansas technical College, Clark Coco. He told me about their courses that prepare students for certification in GPS/GIS, and how today everything that is put in the ground, pillar, pipe or wire, in any way is mapped using GPS/GIS. Another nontypical career.

The point is that we prepare every student, graduating hundreds of thousands every year from K-12 schools, with virtually the same preparation, as if every one of their futures is going to be exactly the same. We mass-produce graduates. But more and more we don’t need thousands and thousands of students prepared with the same knowledge and skills. What we need are some, perhaps in the hundreds, students prepared to do thousands of different jobs.

We simply have to stop mass-producing the same kind of graduates. With the advancements in technology and knowledge about learning it is unconscionable that we haven’t applied that new learning to our schools in the 21st century. Everything in our world today, touching every aspect of our lives, has been customized and individualized … except our public education experiences. Preparing every student for the same standardized tests isn’t acceptable. In fact it’s detrimental to the individual student, to our society, and to our country. – Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

Rex had a handful of students whose needs simply weren’t being met in a traditional educational setting. In fact, according to Rex, several of the young men were about to step away from becoming dropouts. But Rex, who readily admits that he was potentially one of those boys when he was in high school, knew the way to their hearts. He knew that if you want to hook a group of high school boys who are close to dropping out, and totally disengage from all school activities, the way to do it is in the car.

So Rex brought the boys together  to build a car. Not just any car, a 32 Ford roadster. Recently completed, the car was sold … for $31,000! That covered the cost of all the materials to build the car with something left over to put back into the program.

And the rest, as they say, is history. The program has doubled in size, has received many donated vehicles, and is well on its way to being a permanent fixture at Peabody-Burns high school. The students are working on their second 32 Ford, this time a touring car.

The program has all of the characteristics that make for great educational experience. The students are authentically engaged, in fact to the point that toward the end of building the first car the instructor, Matt, had to get permission to take some of the students home … at two o’clock in the morning! But it’s not just that the students are authentically engaged, in a learning-by-doing atmosphere they are applying  all of their academic learning in real situations.

I had the opportunity to visit with the instructor and the students last week.  Their stories range from hilarious to heartwarming. And all the kids have a story. But each individual will tell you what a difference the hot rod program has made in their lives. – Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

Last week was a hectic week but it ended on a positive note. I got to attend MACE, that stands for Mid America Computers in Education, in Manhattan Kansas. MACE is always one of my favorite conferences to attend, not so much for the presentations but for the people. You see, MACE attract some of the most innovative, and creative, nerd wannabes around the state. For the most part they’re classroom teachers who are figuring out new and unique ways to use technology in their classrooms.

Typically, the presentations aren’t always the best, but I appreciate how many of these individuals are teachers taking a risk to stand in front of their peers and present. Many for the first time. The kinds of things they are doing in their classroom won’t get the attention of Bill Gates, they are swimming upstream against the system and for that they deserve a lot of credit.

MACE is always well run and the location on the campus of Kansas State University is beautiful. But I’m still most impressed with the enthusiasm, creativity, and innovation that the educators present are demonstrating. I wish, for the sake of all these individuals, their efforts were leading to more systemic change. Unfortunately there isn’t much of that going on in education today. You see very few administrators, principals or superintendents, at MACE. That’s a shame because they could learn a lot.

The good news is you hear very little, if any, discussion about raising standardized test scores. The bad news is conferences that don’t focus on standardized test scores don’t get very much attention. Focusing on standardized test scores is politically valuable, focusing on the stuff that the educators present at MACE focus on  means better educated kids. Unfortunately, in schools today we’re more interested in raising test scores than we are in providing a better educational experience for kids. If test scores did as much to prepare kids for the 21st century as do the educators at MACE public education would be in a lot better shape. – Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

Even former Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch agrees! Well she didn’t exactly say it’s a curse but she did say when speaking about No Child Left Behind, “… I’ve looked at the evidence and I’ve concluded they’re wrong. They’ve put us on the wrong track. I feel passionately about the improvement of public education and I don’t think any of this is going to improve public education.”  And I couldn’t agree more!

Her primary concern is the same as mine the emphasis on standardized tests.  I believe that we have created a culture of test taking skills, she believes we have created a culture of “cheating and dishonesty.”  I think that she believes the tests are important and that the scores mean something, I don’t think they’re important and I don’t think they mean nearly as much as we like to believe.

I see all too often schools that are focused on strategies to raise test scores, that have nothing to do with students learning more, and being able to apply the knowledge under real-world conditions.The net effect of the strategies is that our students by school more boring, and more irrelevant than ever. And boring and irrelevant are not desirable conditions for learning to occur.

However, it is encouraging that some high-level people, mostly former policymakers, are seeing that the top down, centrally controlled strategies for improving education aren’t working. Hopefully, those in charge will abandon these well-meaning but misguided strategies and focus on real systemic change that leads to the kind of educational system our kids need, and deserve, in the 21st century. – Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

I was recently listening to the book The Knack by Norm Brodsky and Bo Burlingham. It’s a highly engaging and informative read that I would highly recommend. Brodsky and Burlingham, both Inc. magazine columnists, offer a host of advice to budding businesspeople.

The thing that caught my attention in the book was a comment that the authors made, that most business people don’t know what business they’re in. I’ve heard many times that the business  McDonald’s is in is real estate. This comment got me to thinking, what business are schools in?

I asked several of my colleagues what business they thought schools were in. I received several answers but I was surprised at how consistent the answers were.  Here is what I believe the business that schools are in:

• Warehousing students
• Covering the Regents required curriculum
• Raising standardized test scores
• Propagating and protecting the system

I realize that this list is offensive to many educators, but many educators in private agree completely. I regularly have the opportunity to listen in to conversations held between and among educational leaders. They use different terms but the conversations invariably focus on these four areas.  They talk about their responsibility to look after the well-being of their students, which they do. They talk about how important it is to prepare kids for college, and improve achievement. And they talk about how important it is have all the pieces of the system in place for the well-being of the children.

However, all of their mission statements, in some manner, talk about preparing kids to be productive members of society. I never hear a conversation where they talk about what it looks like to prepare a student to be a productive member of a 21st-century society. I fear that they avoid this discussion because it might actually mean changing, rather than propagating and protecting, the system.

I would point out that the younger the students are the more focused they are on teaching the students lifelong skills. I think we do the best job in education in the primary grades. But starting about third grade the system becomes increasingly more about covering a college-bound curriculum, specifically the regents required curriculum, and raising standardized test scores, than it does about preparing kids for the world they live in. – Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

Compliance or engagement, which is most important? I am often concerned when educators talk about engagement that they are actually talking about compliance. Let me give you an example. I’ve seen several surveys that purport to measure engagement but when you look at what they measure they talk about students who get to class on time, students who turn in their homework, students who don’t miss school, and students to do their homework. To me those are all issues of compliance, students are doing what they’re told, when they are told, and how they are told.

Engagement on the other hand is much more about students that are so involved in what they’re doing that they lose track of time. So involved that they spend evenings and weekends working on schoolwork, not because they’re required to but because they want to.

But the most important issue around compliance and engagement is how well our students being prepared for their future. Students who are compliant are being perfectly prepared for algorithmic jobs. Those are the jobs that have established processes and procedures that lead to a defined correct outcome. That’s exactly what we prepare kids for in schools. Look at standardized tests, we want students to know exactly the right steps to come up with exactly the right answer. Algorithmic.

On the other hand, those jobs that don’t have established processes and procedures that don’t lead to one correct outcome make up about 70% of the new jobs being created in America. Yet in most schools little or no time  is spent with students in preparation for this heuristic types of work. Again, if you look at standardized tests they in no way reflect heuristic thinking.

So which is important compliance or engagement? Obviously the answer is engagement. Yet it’s not what we’re doing in schools. If we are going to prepare students for the 21st century  it’s important that they become self-directed, and problem solvers. And I don’t mean problems that have a well-defined process with one correct answer. For our students, having an educational system that is algorithmic by nature is boring and irrelevant. One of the keys to school change will be to quit focusing on standardized tests and instead preparing our kids for their future. That will mean making the educational experience heuristics in nature, not algorithmic. – Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

like most states around the country schools in Kansas are engaged in a conversation about making cuts, making changes, and saving money. Schools in Kansas have made substantial cuts already and the worst may be yet to come.

One of the discussions that is occurring involves the reduction or suspension of athletics and extracurricular activities. Many schools have already reduced the number of events, especially in middle school and junior high schools. Some superintendents believe that if athletic events were reduced or even eliminated that the public outcry from parents would force legislators to return schools to higher levels of funding.

While that may be true I have a different take on the potential consequences of reducing or suspending athletics and other extracurricular activities. It is my opinion that high schools are terminally obsolete in the 21st century. I further believe that athletics and other extracurricular activities are the glue that are holding high schools together. What we do in high schools systemically makes no sense. But a collection of arcane rules, many of which are built around athletic eligibility, are tolerated because students desire to participate in extracurricular activities.

If schools did suspend athletics there are ample opportunities for students to participate in those athletic events and activities outside the purview of schools.  Just look around, for the girls there is volleyball, basketball, softball and track even in most rural communities. For the boys there are leagues that exist in basketball, wrestling, baseball, and track. Not to mention swimming and tennis and a whole array of other activities. In fact in almost all communities there are programs that would meet the needs of virtually all kids, with the possible exception of high school football. And you can be assured that that need would be filled also.

So the unintended consequences. Perhaps once students experience those athletic events outside the purview of public schools they may not return to those events inside public schools. Many individuals; including parents, coaches, and participants, already complain about the antiquated rules established by the high school activities association. In addition, it is increasingly difficult for schools to find qualified teachers who are also qualified coaches. A conflict that does not exist if athletic events are not controlled by schools.

So be careful superintendents what you wish for. You may believe that the suspension of athletics might put intolerable pressure on the legislature. On the other hand, if your kids don’t have the motivational influence of athletics to keep them tolerating an obsolete educational system you may be getting bigger problems than your solving. –  Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post