It’s TIme to Expel Sports From Our Public Schools

Bowen_HighSchoolSports_Post

Note: This is the third part in a three part series I was asked to write in response to a question posed on August 8, 2015 by the Lancaster (PA) Newspaper Editorial Board, “What is the Purpose of High School Sports?” In this final column, I offer an alternative model to our current system of high school sports. It appeared in the Sunday, September 13, 2015 edition of LNP.

It’s Time to Expel Sports From Our Public Schools

Although some avid sports fans might not believe it, our nation’s educational system would survive privatization of interscholastic sports teams, including football.

While our schools might be less dynamic and in some ways less fun without the teams, they would continue to go about the business of educating. And that education would likely be improved.

Physical education and wellness programs could be expanded, resulting in more students being able to avail themselves of health-and exercise-related resources. Thus our educational system would be better positioned to serve our nation’s broad, long-term health and fitness needs.

Athletes and coaches would continue to have the opportunity to hone their skills. Elite sports activities and training would simply shift to other local sponsoring agencies.

In Europe, the responsibility for developing elite athletes and teams is borne by private sports clubs or professional teams. When a youngster is identified as having superior talent and potential for a particular sport, he or she pursues that sport through a local club program. The educational system’s athletics programs focus on activities aimed at broad-based participation, lifetime enjoyment and improved public health.

The American educational system does the opposite – spending a lot on activities that primarily entertain the public and serve the needs of a select group of athletes. Could it be that the Europeans have it right?

While the move to a club sport system may sound radical, it is not. In some sports, such a shift is already underway. Many elite competitors in soccer, basketball and swimming have come to value participation in local clubs or on traveling Amateur Athletic Union or all-star teams above their high school teams. And fewer than 50 percent of high school coaches are professional teachers.

These trends are simply the first signs of the decoupling of elite athletics and high schools.

Critics of such change will cite research indicating academic and social benefits from participation in high school athletics. But do these positive correlations exist because of involvement with a high school team or simply any team, regardless of its sponsor? Athletics contribution to building character and teaching lessons of discipline, sportsmanship, teamwork and sacrifice will remain, regardless of who sponsors our young people’s teams.

And, if we believe athletics offer the educational and community-building benefits, why does our system weed out kids at younger and younger ages? If children learn so much from participation in athletics, shouldn’t school-sponsored athletics be designed to involve everyone? A healthy lifestyle does not just happen. Lifelong fitness principles and habits must be taught, nurtured and practiced to become an ongoing part of an individual’s lifestyle.

Obviously, community resistance to such a shift would be enormous. The history and culture of high school sport are very deep and powerful. I would argue that the driving force fueling the passion for a local team is not high school pride but community pride. The high school team is simply the vehicle through which community pride is currently expressed.

After an initial outcry, fans would come to identify with the team of their choice, even if the sponsor is a local sports club, car dealership or a feeder program for a professional team. Regardless of the outcry, we must critically assess our priorities. And we must go where reason, data and the research take us.

Ultimately, American education must structure itself according to what will best enable it to fulfill its responsibility to meet the educational and public health needs of our children. And as much as we love sports, we must value education more.

Our schools will survive without interscholastic sports. While they may be less entertaining, the education of our populace would continue and likely improve as the focus on education would intensify.

What is the Purpose of High School Sports?

This is the second of three essays I wrote in response to a question posed on August 8, 2015 by the Lancaster (PA) Editorial Board.  

Bowen_HighSchoolSports_Post

What is the Purpose of High School Sports?

School sponsored, elite athletics have evolved to a point where a solid argument can be made that their overall impact on our academic values and educational priorities has become more negative than positive. And we are all responsible.

I say this as the son of a high school football coach, I played basketball well enough to receive a college scholarship and play professionally. After playing, I earned a Ph.D., with a concentration on the role of athletics in the educational setting and then carved out a career in college athletics administration. Throughout, I was driven by the belief in the power and potential of athletics as an educational tool. I still strongly believe in that potential.

But if there is anything I’ve learned in almost 50 years as an athlete and as someone who has worked in the field and studied, researched and written about the role of sport in our educational system and society, it is this. The power and potential of sports as an activity to teach valuable life lessons and contribute in relevant and timely ways to the mission of an educational institution depends upon whether we, as parents, coaches, administrators, teachers, faculty,community leaders, media and fans, keep them in the proper perspective.

Yes, there are many examples of how sport has changed young people’s lives, mine included. Yes, there are endless anecdotes about how high school sports have united communities and served as a “hook” for kids who would drop out if not for athletic participation. But those lessons learned, “engagement” impacts and community building benefits are not unique to sport. Activities such as music and the theater arts can do the same.

Sports, like the arts, are simply tools. The ability and potential for these activities to yield positive educational and community outcomes is dependent upon the environment within which they occur. Unfortunately, as a result of the win at all cost culture that has come to drive these programs, the environment surrounding elite athletics has become badly distorted. School sports have become more about the end result (winning and advancing to the next level) than the process (education). As that culture has grown and intensified, sports’ effectiveness as an educational tool has, in a corresponding fashion, decreased. The end result is that we have come to value athletic achievement far more than educational excellence.

The evidence to support this claim is abundant: from overzealous parents, to ego-driven coaches, to the physical toll (in particular to the brain), to cases of academic fraud to misplaced spending priorities. And now, we have the revelation highlighted by Pia Fenmore (“Keeping an eye on the mental health of our student-athletes,” Health and Fitness, Aug. 2) about how athletes suffer depression at a greater rate than non-athletes due to increased pressure to specialize in and train for a specific sport year-round. These impacts would not be a concern except for the fact that the primary justification for sponsoring athletics is that they are an educational tool that effectively supplements the academic mission of the institution in relevant and timely ways.

That being the case, it is no stretch to say that elite school athletics has evolved to a point where it’s educational return is no longer strong enough to warrant the enormous investment of time, effort, energy and emotion that we place in them. Again, this is not to say that there aren’t plenty of anecdotes and examples of sports’ positive impact on individuals. But thanks to the culture that has come to dominate the enterprise, interscholastic athletics have, on balance, become significantly less effective as an educational tool. While we may be getting an excellent entertainment return on investment, the educational return on investment is suspect at best.

Elite school sports, as currently conducted, is not meeting its’ educational purposes. And if an activity is no longer meeting the primary justification for its existence, that’s a problem, particularly in today’s world where schools are facing increasing expectations regarding providing students an education worthy of the 21st century with decreasing resources and community support.

That is why two related questions posed in an LNP editorial earlier this month (“on stress and high school sports, Aug. 8) - “What is the point of school sports? Are they meant to benefit our athletes, or us?” are so critical.

Should the purpose of school sports be to sponsor elite programs that heap the vast majority of their resources, time, effort and emotion on a few elite athletes and teams, largely to entertain the community, while pushing everyone else to the sidelines as spectators? Or, is a more appropriate role for school sports to sponsor broad-based sports activities designed to teach and encourage participation in activities that can be practiced for a lifetime? In other words, should the purpose of our educational investment in athletics be to develop the next NFL quarterback or to instill in all students a familiarity with and commitment to life long health and fitness habits? To be more precise, is the purpose of high school sports entertainment or to improve public health in this, one of the most obese nations on the planet?

That is the question we have to consider. And in the final essay of this three part series, we’ll explore what such an alternative system might look like.

Reinstating UAB Football - An Opportunity Lost

In an article published in the December 6, 2015 edition of The Birmingham (AL) News, I praised the University of Alabama – Birmingham’s board and leadership team for recognizing the fact that competitive and financial realities change and for responding to those changes by discontinuing their football program. I wrote that schools that refuse to recognize those changing realities risk damaging their ability to fully meet their educational missions. And that continuing to expect academic institutions to fall on a financial sword for athletics in the name of alumni ego and a national profile based on sports was irresponsible. I added that UAB leaders should be commended for providing something that has long been sorely lacking in the landscape of American higher education. Specifically, courage, leadership, common sense and educational vision as it applies to big-time college athletics. But after months of protests and public discussion, UAB announced that it will reinstate its football program for the 2016 season.

So much for UAB stepping up to provide much needed national educational leadership.

While UAB may have regained its football program, it has lost what could have been a historic opportunity to stand out as a true national leader as it applies to the relationship between big-time football and educational mission. The long-term educational return on investment associated with being an institution that clearly and emphatically stood firm, in the face of great resistance, for academic integrity, educational priorities and institutional responsibility would have been very powerful. Certainly far greater than the educational ROI of a few wins in football.

12-football-generic-1600x1200

Regardless, in the end, this decision is UAB’s to make. While it is perfectly understandable the UAB community to celebrate this news, they should also fully recognize that the issues that lead to the initial decision are not going to go away. The fact is, the trends and challenges that lead to the initial decision are not only going to continue, but they will become more pronounced in the years ahead.

Specifically, expectations of universities to provide an education worthy of the 21St Century are going to continue to rise. This, against a backdrop of declining funding, decreasing government support, increasing tuition, rising student debt and growing public cynicism regarding the value of a college degree. In such an environment, spending an enormous amount of time, effort, energy and resources on a football program will be harder to justify. Other than providing compelling entertainment, how exactly does sponsoring, at great expense, an FBS football team contribute to an institution’s ability to meet the rising expectations of providing students a world-class education?

Second, the cost associated with sponsoring football at the FBS level will continue to significantly outpace not only our national economy’s rate of inflation, but higher education’s rate of inflation as well. On top of that, the NCAA’s recent approval of measures to give more autonomy to the five powerhouse conferences (Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12, ACC and Big 12), to allow them to spend even more on athletics will undoubtedly significantly increase the competitive distance between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. And make no mistake, UAB is clearly a “have not” in the FBS universe. How exactly is that a strategic and educationally sound path forward?

Finally, there is a moral issue that simply will not go away. There is going to come a point in time where the evidence of the debilitating effects of football participation become so clear and the physical costs to young people so great that public perception of schools that are willing to “sacrifice” students in the name of athletic glory and financial gain may shift. In short, the public may come to wonder how an educational institution can not simply sponsor, but celebrate, an activity that has such a strong possibility of inflicting serious physical damage for public entertainment and branding purposes. The hypocrisy of supposedly being about the education of young people while continuing to invest significant amounts of money, time, effort and emotion in an activity that scrambles their brains simply for public entertainment will be plain for all to see. How exactly does that advance an institution of higher education’s mission?

Again, this is a decision for the UAB community. But be clear. The forces that lead to the decision in the first place are not going to disappear.

So all of you who are raising the millions of dollars needed to pull UAB football up off the mat, enjoy the moment. But don’t enjoy it for too long. You need to get back to work raising even more money and writing even bigger checks to keep it all afloat.

Good luck with that.

What Would Teddy (Roosevelt) Do?

teddy-roosevelt-1040cs022312

In the early 1900’s football was an exceedingly brutal sport. With little protective gear, players suffered horrible injuries, from wrenched spinal cords to crushed skulls and even death. The Chicago Tribune reported that in 1904 alone, there were 18 football related deaths. Amid growing calls for its abolition, President Teddy Roosevelt entered the fray and urged radical reforms that ultimately saved the sport. History also tells us that Roosevelt hunted elephants.

In 2013, there were “only” eight deaths resulting from brain or neck injury related to football, all in high school. Football advocates will claim that proves that equipment, teaching techniques, playing rules and medical monitoring have improved dramatically since 1904. That’s true, but it is also true that players have gotten bigger, stronger and faster, resulting in significantly more violent hits and collisions with all of that mayhem driven by a win at all cost, entertainment culture and value system. In short, a case can be made that football is more dangerous than ever.

But the physical dangers of football are only a part of the story.

While my intention is not to diminish the tragic deaths of young people at the hands of football, there is another aspect and influence of the game that is becoming exceedingly dangerous. Specifically, it is the detrimental impact our nation’s love affair with elite athletics and, in particular, football has on academic integrity and the educational mission of our entire educational system, from our junior high schools to our colleges and universities.

Let’s be clear on one thing. This is about football. Despite all the talk about athletics in general, football -- with its outsized influence on our culture and our educational system -- is the indisputable driver of the athletics enterprise. While other sports, basketball in particular, struggle with similar ills, football’s shear scope, engrained tradition, enormous entertainment appeal and economic clout make it the “Elephant in the Room” of educational reform.

That’s why they call it “King Football”.

The ways in which our over-emphasis on football undermines our educational system are many. Stories of academic fraud, ethical shortfalls, extravagant expenditures, physical punishment and a blatant disregard of academic values are widespread. Observers and critics of interscholastic and intercollegiate athletics have been documenting this state of affairs for decades.

But make no mistake, the costs of our heavy educational “investment” in football are steep. From mangled bodies and scrambled brains to academic fraud to growing athletic department deficits to the glorifying of athletic feats over academic accomplishment to its obsessive win at all cost culture, all of which severely limit its potential as an educational tool. Yes, football’s entertainment qualities can bring joy, unite a community and teach valuable life lessons, but the fact is, football is not unique in its’ potential and ability to provide these benefits. Other sports and activities, such as music, can provide such advantages and more, without those side effects.

The Search for Truth

One of the most basic tenets of education in America is the search for truth. But finding the truth is often the easy part. The challenge is mustering the courage and community will to go to where the logic, truth and data lead. The fact is, when you add the harm to our educational system to all of the physical carnage, it is clear that football’s impact is far more damaging to our society than what Teddy Roosevelt was faced with in 1904.

Yet, we continue to invest an enormous amount of time, effort, energy, emotion and resources in football. While some may scoff at or refuse to even consider the possibility that the culture of football and the lessons learned through participation in it have lost relevance in today’s world, to do so is foolish. Context matters and the world is changing at a rapid pace. These are community choices. We can choose to reconsider and restructure our community and educational investments or we can simply put our heads in the sand and continue to sponsor activities simply because we have always done so, regardless of whether they remain effective from an educational return on investment perspective.

In short, we need more schools and communities concerned about, committed to and investing in, educational excellence rather than football glory. We must have more pride in National Merit Scholars than all-state running backs.

But it takes leadership, courage and direction.

That’s where Teddy Roosevelt comes in. At least the example he set in 1904.

A Presidential Commission

A bipartisan bill was recently introduced in Congress calling for the formation of a Presidential Commission to study the future of college sports. While such a commission could be helpful, it would represent merely a band-aid on a much larger and infinitely more important cultural and educational problem. Specifically, what role should football play in our culture and how can it be structured in a way that allows for its’ entertainment potential but minimizes its negative impact on our nation’s educational values and system.

If we are going to go to the trouble of creating a Presidential Commission, we might as well have it address the root influence (the football culture) that impacts our entire educational system. Again, football drives the ship and is the “Elephant in the Room”. Yes, we should establish a Presidential Commission. But its’ purpose and focus should be to study the role of football in our entire educational system, not simply our colleges and universities.

What exactly would this commission do? It is not reasonable to expect that it will adopt specific rules, regulations and policies. Rather the purpose would be to draw attention to the issues, create and encourage dialogue and to sketch out a potential new model for football’s role in our educational system in the twenty-first century. We’re talking about a major cultural shift and the first step is to begin to draw attention to the issue in a comprehensive way, something that a Presidential Commission would be uniquely qualified to do.

Fortunately, there have been several developments -- from class action law suits, to new research, to student activism to NCAA restructuring -- that have opened the door for a more open, honest and reasoned discussion regarding the role of football in America. These developments are clearly something that a Presidential Commission could build on.

In the final analysis, the challenges we face in educating our children and maintaining our economic status as a world power are simply too great for our schools systems to continue to invest in an activity that, however entertaining, mangles bodies, scrambles brains and has a consistent tendency to undermine academic values. It is against this backdrop that we must reconsider whether our tremendous educational investment in football continues to be a sound one.

History tells us that Teddy Roosevelt was successful in spurring measures to reform football into a less dangerous game in 1904. But the game’s broad influence has become infinitely more dangerous today. While a Presidential Commission limited to the study of college athletics would be better than nothing, the fact is, this is far bigger than college athletics. King Football’s influence in our educational system and thus, our culture, is enormous. And the fact is, that influence is becoming increasingly negative. We’ve reached a tipping point that requires bigger and bolder thinking and more aggressive action. History also tells us that if Teddy Roosevelt was anything, he was bold and aggressive.

He also hunted elephants.

So while a Presidents Commission on college athletics might help, my guess is that Teddy would be more inclined to think bigger, be bolder and address the “Elephant in the Room” of educational reform in American.

A True Public Service for the NFL

Every pro sports league does them. Those public service announcements and commercials with athletes reading to kids or teaching them sports skills. While my point is not to dismiss the genuine good many of these efforts bring to our communities, here’s a community “service” project for the NFL that will have more positive impact on the health and educational well being of our nation than all of the NFL’s other public service projects combined.

Specifically, the NFL should assume responsibility for the administration, conduct and costs related to the development of football players.

It is notable that the United States is the only country in the world in which the responsibility for developing elite athletes and teams rests with the educational system. In Europe that responsibility rests with private sports clubs, professional teams and national sports governing bodies. The responsibility of the educational system regarding athletics is to promote and encourage broad based participation in activities that can be enjoyed for a lifetime for purposes of public health.

In some sports, such a shift is well on its way. Many athletes in the sports of soccer, basketball and swimming have come to consider their participation on local club, AAU or all-star teams more important than participation on their high school teams.

So why not football?

Why should our already financially strapped junior high and high schools be responsible for sponsoring and financing an activity that mangles bodies, scrambles brains, has diminishing educational value due to an increasing emphasis on winning and develops skills in participants that have little to do with future success in the creative and innovative economy and world community of the future?

Make no mistake, the costs of our heavy educational “investment” in football are steep. Yes, football’s entertainment qualities can bring joy, unite a community and teach valuable life lessons, but the fact is, football is not unique in its’ potential to provide these benefits. Other sports and activities, such as music, can provide such advantages and more, without those side effects.

Fortunately, there is an organization that exists that could assume responsibility for operating a national club football system, USA Football. USA Football is the national governing body for football, working locally with hundreds of youth football organizations on safety issues and coaching certification. Granted, it would take significant time, effort and expense to get USA Football to a place where it could take on this challenge. But the good news is that USA Football is part of an organization with unparalleled visibility, significant financial clout and sufficient administrative and organizational reach, structure and resources – The National Football League.

Is such a notion and shift far-fetched? No. The NFL has the deep pockets, administrative expertise, cultural influence and societal clout to make it work.

Frankly, it’s about time the NFL made this investment. They have benefitted from a model that any business would kill for. They invest nothing in “product” (player) development. That is a service our educational system and our tax dollars provide for them at no cost.

Contrary to what sports fans might believe, our nation’s educational system would not collapse if the responsibility for developing football players was “privatized”. Players and coaches would continue to hone their skills as training activities would simply shift to USA Football. Further, there is nothing to suggest that football must be a part of an educational institution for young people to learn the lessons of discipline, sportsmanship, teamwork, and sacrifice. The potential to utilize football as a means to build character and teach these lessons will remain, regardless of the team’s sponsoring agency.

After an initial public outcry, fans would come to identify with the team of their choice, despite it being run by USA Football rather than the local high school. While our schools may less fun without football, they will continue to go about the business of educating. In fact, the education of students would likely improve as the focus on academics would intensify.

Again, the point of this essay is not to diminish the great work and public service the NFL is doing in our communities. But relieving our schools of the responsibility for underwriting and administering the NFL’s player development system? That is a public service that will have an enormous, long-term positive societal impact on not only the 114 million people who watched the 2015 Super Bowl, but also for the almost 200 million people who did not.

You Simply Can’t Put Lipstick on a Pigskin

deflated football

The following essay was published in the Lancaster, PA Sunday News on April 19, 2015

On March 29, LNP devoted significant space to a discussion of concussions in youth sports. While the writers presented some interesting perspectives, there is far more to the story.

This is evidenced in a recent report that USA Football, which is funded by the NFL and various corporate sponsors, including ESPN, has invested in developing and conducting “Mom’s Clinics” throughout the country. The clinics target moms, many of whom decide whether their children play tackle football, to reassure them that the game can be played safely.

Ironically, another article reported the results of a new study of NFL retirees that found those who began playing football when they were younger than 12 years old had a higher risk of developing memory and thinking problems later in life.

While both groups scored below average on many tests, those who began playing before age 12 scored roughly 20 percent lower than those who began playing after age 12.

While we should applaud the efforts of those who are attempting to make the game safer, it’s almost laughable the extent to which the NFL believes that the growing awareness of the violent nature of the game is something that can be pasted over with promotional campaigns to convince the public that the game is suitably safe.

Seemingly every few days, another revelation from a study or comments from a former player remind us of the brutal and debilitating nature of the game. When people such as President Barack Obama, LeBron James and football great Mike Ditka say they would not let their children play tackle football, it is clear that something major is going on.

It is becoming increasingly clear that youth, junior high and high school football, as currently played, will see a steady decline in participation and sponsorship. For example, Pop Warner, the nation’s largest youth football program, saw participation drop 9.5 percent between 2010 and 2012. Yes, marginal progress is being made in the increased vigilance, testing and return-to-play standards.

Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to implement such standards and programs across the wide collection of loosely regulated youth leagues and underfunded school systems in which the game is played.

The question is whether these efforts to transform an extremely dangerous game to a point where it is “acceptably safe” can occur before the growing evidence of the high risk becomes cemented in public opinion.

To date, the primary response to safety concerns has been a call to increase investment in concussion testing and assessment programs, coaches training requirements, increased medical staffing and improved equipment. As evidence of the risk grows, it will be increasingly difficult for youth leagues and schools to obtain liability insurance. The number of companies willing to underwrite the risk will decline and the cost to insure against those liabilities will skyrocket. Where are school districts going to find the money for these additional, expensive safeguards?

Further, the explosion of media coverage relating to brain trauma will lead to a pronounced increase in awareness and concern among parents, community leaders and school administrators that football, as currently played, is simply too risky to sponsor or to allow their children to play.

But even if the “damage dial” could be scaled back from nine on a scale of 10, the danger will still be too great. The very nature and core of the game is rooted in violence. The ability to change the basic culture of the game is marginal, at best. As a result, the force of the “too much risk, not enough reward” argument will simply begin to overwhelm the well-intentioned efforts to make the game acceptably safe.

Simply put, the costs associated with making the game suitably safe — which frankly, is impossible — are going to place a financial and liability burden on school systems that will be unsustainable.

There is also a moral issue at stake. The role of our schools is to strengthen and build young people’s brains. That being the case, how can a school continue to justify and invest significant amounts of money, time, effort and emotion in an activity that endangers them?

These revelations have raised the stakes in the debate regarding the proper role of football in our schools and communities. The issue is, at what point do the long-term physical and health risks to participants overwhelm the diminishing educational and social benefits?

In short, the evidence of the likelihood of young people sustaining brain trauma in football has become so strong that it demands attention and discussion by every board of education in the nation.

This is serious stuff. And the long-term implications for the role that football will play in our schools and communities are significant.

In the end, the questions we should all be asking ourselves are these: Is the role of our schools to sponsor activities that place young people’s brains at grave risk for the entertainment of the community? Or, stated more plainly, should our schools be sponsoring and, indeed, celebrating an activity that scrambles young people’s brains?