A “New Deal” for the 21st Century College Athlete

SAN DIEGO, CA - NOVEMBER 14: Aaron Gordon #11 of theArizona Wildcats dunks the ball on an inbounds pass in the second half of the game and is fouled by Dakarai Allen #4 of the San Diego State Aztecs at Viejas Arena on November 14, 2013 in San Diego, California. (Photo by Kent C. Horner/Getty Images)

NOTE: This essay appeared in the December 10 edition of Inside Higher Ed

In 1997, I published a book titled The Successful College Athletic Program: The New Standard in which I wrote about “The Deal” between the “student-athlete and the institution. Specifically, I argued that the agreement in which student-athletes provide athletic performance in exchange for the opportunity to earn a well-balanced athletic, academic and social experience resulting in a meaningful degree that prepares them for the next 50 years of their lives was, in principle, fair. As a former college basketball player and former associate commissioner the Southeastern Conference, I saw enough evidence of this in the players I interacted with that I truly believed it.

Given how much the landscape of intercollegiate athletics has changed since 1997, The New Standard might as well have been published in 1887.

Everything about “big time” college athletics has exploded. From budgets to revenue generated, from media exposure to public scrutiny and, in a corresponding fashion, the pressure to win and the 24/7, 12-months-a-year athletic demands on players. The result? There is no longer any question that the “education” athletes are receiving as their share of the bargain at far too many universities has been woefully inadequate and in some cases, fraudulent. Clearly, it is time to restructure the athlete/institutional agreement in a way that reflects the realities of major college athletics in the 21st century.

Before proceeding, we must recognize a fundamental reality. There is no longer any point in referring to the young people who play football and men’s basketball at the major college level as “student-athletes”. Given the amount of time they are required to spend on athletics, for all practicality, they are, in fact, professionals. Further, their ability to keep their scholarships (pay) hinges upon their ability to perform athletically (play). And a professional athlete is one who plays for pay. So let’s move beyond the notion that they are amateurs and can ever be so again. That is pure fantasy.

So how can the deal be re-structured to be equitable in the wildly commercialized, highly professionalized, media-driven world of college athletics in the 21st century?

Let’s start with the basics, the benefits provided and costs covered for the athlete while on campus. Fortunately, many of these basic, on-campus needs are beginning to be met with proposals for increased cost of attendance and living stipends and the possibility of multi-year scholarship guarantees that have been granted through recent NCAA changes. That’s a good start.

But let’s not simply “give” athletes things while on campus to keep them and the public placated in the short term. We must also recalibrate our priorities to where long-term considerations become paramount. That will require a more creative, open-minded and strategic approach.

The New Deal

There are two fundamental principles and responsibilities that colleges and universities owe to all students, including athletes: an educational experience that is relevant in today’s world and a commitment to keeping them safe and healthy.

As has been well documented, the health risks of football are skyrocketing, driven by the increasing revelations relating to the risk of concussion and long-term brain trauma. We’re no longer talking about sprained ankles and broken bones. They can heal. Brains often do not.

As a result, the ground has shifted regarding institutional responsibility for not only athletes’ short-term health while on campus but also their long-term physical well-being. While there are many issues to be worked out regarding eligibility, length of coverage and adjudication of benefits and costs, some package of long-term health care after separation from the institution should be a part of the New Deal.

Further, it is abundantly clear that the standard college educational experience is not available for football and men’s basketball athletes. Yet, we insist on forcing many who are clearly “non-traditional” students into a “traditional” educational format. Clearly, that approach has not worked. Simply consider the University of North Carolina’s decades long use of bogus classes and majors to keep athletes eligible as exhibit A. And that was a school that had long been cited as one that did it the “right” way. Obviously, UNC is not the only college to engage in this practice, as evidenced in recent academic fraud cases at Syracuse and the University of Texas. The fact is, academic fraud and disregarding the long-term needs and aspirations of athletes in the name of winning has been going on, in one form or another, for decades, if not for a century.

We simply can’t continue to enter into agreements with young athletes based on a promise on which we can’t deliver. We must restructure the academic portion of their college experience in a way that will make the education they do receive worthy of, and relevant in, the 21st Century.

As a foundation, there must be an opportunity and mechanism for athletes to return to school after their playing days are over. For example, for every year that an athlete plays for a university, he should be awarded an additional one-year, full scholarship to attend the institution at a later date to more fully avail himself of the broad array of not only educational, but social, opportunities and experiences that were not truly available when playing ball. Regardless of how the specifics are worked out, the New Deal should include such a provision.

The On Campus Pay Out

There is another aspect to the educational “payout” that must be addressed. What should the “educational experience” look like while on campus?

It starts with the sacred notion of the athlete as a full-time student. The college experience of these athletes is so radically different from that of the average, traditional student that they might as well be attending college on another planet. Why continue the farce of these athletes having to be traditional full-time students when the fundamental structure of the system prevents them from being so?

For example, during their main playing seasons, athletes should be part-time students. During the off-season, they should be required to be enrolled in more hours. But, once again, we must be honest. Being a major college athlete in the sports of football and basketball is a 24/7, year round job. What they really need is a legitimate off-season. It was never intended that part of “The Deal” was that we “own” them twelve months a year. They are not machines. Athletes need a period of time where they have no responsibilities or requirements related to the sport for at least three months per year. Even professional teams give their athletes time off.

Further, many expect that as a result of several legal cases currently in the system, athletes will be provided the right to leverage their own pictures and images for financial gain while enrolled in college. Rather than fighting these changes, educational and athletic leaders should embrace it as an opportunity to restructure The Deal in new and creative ways that are more relevant for the athlete of the 21st century.

For example, giving athletes the opportunity to leverage their name and build their personal “brand” offers a wonderful experiential educational opportunity to restructure the bargain in a way that makes sense for today’s world.

Why not, for example, provide athletes the option of a restructured curriculum to not only allow them to leverage their name and brand but to provide opportunities to teach lessons in business and entrepreneurship? Let’s put a curriculum in place where, through a true, real life case study – their very own – they learn the skills of innovation, branding and entrepreneurship.

Athletes will be much more engaged as students if their curriculum centers on using their name and image to build a personal brand or a small business that could result in their own financial gain. Such a curriculum could include studies in marketing, social media, brand equity, revenue development, financial investing, sales, leadership and mentoring development, sport management, coaching and sport law. These courses are far more likely to be viewed as being more relevant by today’s athletes than those that comprise the more traditional curriculum.

Although some may consider such a change simply kowtowing to athletes, the point is that we must reconsider what a meaningful educational experience for athletes in today’s world consists of as it is clear that the current framework is outdated.

While there may have been a time when athletes could achieve a well-balanced athletic and traditional academic experience, that possibility, for “big time” football and men’s basketball athletes, no longer exists. While the athletic side of the enterprise has evolved exponentially, the expectations and standards relating to the academic side of The Deal have remained virtually unchanged. We simply cannot continue to run a 21st century athletics enterprise with a 20th century mindset and world view.

So the question for higher education leaders is whether they are going to be progressive agents of change or victims of what will likely be draconian change. The choice for American higher education is to either sort this out “amongst ourselves” or leave it to those outside higher education to impose their version of change upon us.

In short, it’s time for a New Deal. This agreement should be comprised of a restructured academic experience that honors our responsibility to provide a real world, honest and relevant educational experience but also reflects the realities of today’s athlete.

Rethinking College Football as a Branding Element

univ. branding

Note: This essay appeared in the November 2015 issue of University Business . One of the primary justifications universities use for sponsoring football programs is that they serve as the “front porch” of the institution. Given the popularity and the intense and intense media coverage of the games, players and coaches, it is hard to argue the point.

For many institutions, football is the largest and clearest window through which the public views not only our colleges and universities, but our entire educational system.

It is not surprising that many schools consider football an effective vehicle through which to build and strengthen their institutional brand. A successful football program can increase visibility, attract a more diverse student body and generate institutional resources in the form of sponsorships and donations. Some schools have started or re-instated football programs specifically for branding purposes.

The Catch

Here’s a question that every educational institution must consider. How do you continue to build and enhance the brand of an educational institution by focusing on an activity that scrambles kids brains?

If the central purpose a university is to provide entertainment for the public, focusing of football as a branding tool makes complete sense. But if the institution’s central purpose is education, the search for truth and developing our nation’s youth, how is that helped by sponsoring and celebrate an activity that an increasing amount of research tells us is profoundly dangerous and debilitating?

Isn’t the role and purpose of an educational institution to build and strengthen brains?

Given the changing cultural consensus regarding the dangers of football, a school that relies too heavily on the sport as a long-term branding tool may be setting itself up for failure. With increased attention by the media and the growing concern of parents for allowing their children to play football, the sport will face a steady decline in youth participation (already in progress) as well as sponsorship of junior high and high school programs.

Similar to boxing’s decline in public popularity due to its extreme violence, so too will football’s popularity decline.

A Moral Issue

There may come a time when the evidence of the physical costs to young people becomes so clear that public perception of schools that willingly “sacrifice” students in the name of athletic glory and financial gain may shift.

If colleges and universities are so cavalier with the long-term health of their athletes in the name of profit, what is to say that they won’t be similarly cavalier regarding the education, health and well being of other students? Given the public’s increasing skepticism regarding the value of a college education, yet another example of profit-before-education could come at great cost.

Will a university’s willingness to sponsor, highlight and celebrate an activity that places its students at significant threat of life-altering brain damage, all in the name of increased visibility, corporate sponsorships and public entertainment , be a brand element that will advance the educational mission?

Sea of Change

A case can be made that eliminating football shows far more educational vision, courage and responsibility in advancing an educational brand. Such a decision will represent educational leadership in getting out ahead of the curve in what will be, despite the denials of the “football industrial complex”, a steady increase in the public’s distaste for a game that, while certainly entertaining, is intensely brutal and physically debilitating for our young people.

To all those institutional advancement and public relations people who continue to view football as an activity to highlight and strengthen an institution’s educational brand, proceed with caution. The seas relating to the public appeal of football that is sponsored by an educational institution are changing.

Artists, Athletes and Governing Boards: Who Plays and Who Wins?

The following essay appeared in the October/November 2015 issue of Trusteeship. It is well past time that America had an open, honest discussion about the role of football in our nation in the 21st century. Higher education should foster that discussion, and college and university board members should drive and direct it.

For more than 300 years, higher education has provided leadership on the issues and challenges of the day, including the part that athletics plays in our educational system and our larger society.   Clearly, how we conduct our college and university athletic programs provides an example that filters down through not only our entire educational system but also thousands of community sports programs. Further, our colleges and universities are not only training the teachers, coaches, principals, and superintendents of the future.They are also conducting the research that informs and influences educational policies, procedures, and priorities at all levels.

With its outsized influence on our culture and our educational system, football is the indisputable driver of the athletics enterprise at all levels. Football’s sheer scope, engrained tradition, enormous entertainment appeal, and economic clout make it the “elephant in the room” in the debate regarding the role of sports in America.   For example, it is no longer uncommon for the budget of a major college football program to exceed $20 million or even $30 million, with revenues exceeding $50 million, as noted in Forbes magazine. And, the New York Times has reported that nine out of the 2013 top-10 most-watched television programs were National Football League (NFL) games. (Small wonder many people call it “King Football.”)

We look to board members, as leaders of the flagship institutions of our entire educational system, to provide broad cultural leadership and direction. In other words, boards’ responsibility to provide educational leadership goes beyond the college campus and extends to every corner of our educational system, and indeed our society generally. In short, this is a seminal moment for college and university leaders. It is a national teaching opportunity that we cannot afford to waste. If higher education leaders do not drive this national debate, who will?   We must have a national discussion regarding whether our enormous educational and community investment in football continues to make sense in a world that has changed vastly since the sport was incorporated into the fabric of American education in the late 1800s. This is not to say that football does not have a place in our society. It does. The question is whether that place should continue to be within our educational system.  

A CHANGING PLAYING FIELD Some recent developments have pushed the issue of the role of football into the national spotlight. Several court cases that will have a major impact on the foundation of college athletics and the NCAA’s “amateurism” model are winding their way through the court system. And there is the NFL and the culture surrounding football, which has been under increasing scrutiny as it relates to issues such as domestic abuse, bullying, sexism, and the use of performance-enhancing and pain-killing drugs.

Arguably, the single biggest development in sports over the past several years, however, has been the increased revelations regarding concussions. Every day it seems we see another story, piece of research, or new evidence regarding the damaging impact of football on the brain, affecting the entire range of football participants, from retired NFL players to youth football participants. Indeed, the NFL recently submitted to federal courts a report stating the league expects nearly one in three players to develop long-term cognitive problems, with symptoms appearing earlier than in the general population.

On the collegiate level, while issues such as academic fraud, growing athletic department deficits, and institutional control have been demanding and will continue to demand the attention of board members, the concussion issue has raised the issue of football’s impact on and place in the academy to a new level. It is now a moral issue.

Specifically, the moral dilemma that every board member must consider is this: If our educational system’s central purpose is education, the search for truth, and developing our nation’s most important resource, our young people, how does it help to sponsor and celebrate an activity that an increasing amount of research tells us is profoundly dangerous and debilitating? Isn’t the role and purpose of an educational institution to build and strengthen brains?   Granted, many well-meaning people and organizations are working, in good faith, on making the game safer. But even if the “damage dial” could be scaled back from nine on a scale of 10 to eight, that is still too dangerous. The very nature and core of the game are rooted in violence. The chances of changing its basic culture are marginal, at best.

In short, the evidence of the likelihood of young people sustaining brain trauma in football has become so strong that it demands the attention of every highschool board of education and college board of trustees in the nation. In fact, researchers at the Department of Veterans Affairs’ brain repository, studied the brain tissue of 128 former professional, semi-pro, college- and high-school-level football players. They found nearly 80 percent of them tested positive for CTE, a degenerative disease of the brain linked to a history of repetitive brain trauma. This is serious stuff.   And the long-term implications for the role that football will play in our educational system and our communities are significant. In the end, the questions we should all be asking ourselves are these: Should our schools and colleges be sponsoring activities that place young people’s brains at grave risk for the entertainment of the community?

Or, stated more plainly, should our educational institutions be sponsoring and, indeed, celebrating an activity that “scrambles” young people’s brains?   Traditionally, the analysis of extracurricular spending in our schools and colleges has focused on a choice: between elite, interscholastic athletics on the one hand, and the arts on the other. While many people resist the notion of directly comparing the relative values of sports and the arts as educational resources, the fact is, when program cuts are required, priorities must be set and choices made. Without such comparison and evaluation, it is impossible to determine which investment is more effective.   In a perfect world, all extracurricular activities would be fully funded. But with politicians and education leaders making it clear that, for the foreseeable future, education funding will continue to be reduced, it’s painfully obvious that we do not live in a perfect world. That being the case, educational institutions at all levels will be forced to engage in a very contentious debate regarding how to allocate increasingly scarce dollars. In such an environment, the fundamental question is: Which extracurricular activities garner the best educational return on investment? And, true to their fiduciary responsibilities, college and university trustees, as educational and societal leaders, must seriously consider and weigh in on these issues.  

CONTEXT MATTERS This debate cannot take place in a vacuum. Because the responsibility of our educational institutions is to respond to the social and economic challenges facing our society by educating our populace to be able to effectively meet those challenges, the dialogue must occur against a larger backdrop. Specifically, three major constructs should be considered.

First, standards regarding what constitutes an education worthy of the 21st century and, as a result, the expectations of our schools and colleges to effectively deliver that type of education, are rising significantly. Second, those standards differ vastly from those that have driven educational policy and priorities of the past. And finally, there is the cold, hard reality that educational institutions must meet these rising standards and expectations in an environment of declining funding and resources—a trend that does not appear to be abating.   These constructs will define and influence our response to the fundamental challenge that we must meet if we are to achieve meaningful education reform. Specifically, we must be more efficient with our resources by developing curricular and teaching strategies that are more effective in instilling in students the skills necessary to succeed in the informationbased, interrelated global economy and world culture of the 21st century.

Further, this discussion must take place against a backdrop that recognizes the fact that America’s economy has changed from one based on industrial might to one based on technology, creativity, collaboration, and innovation. That being the case, what does this mean as applied to educational funding and priorities? How will it impact our efforts to structure our educational institutions and curriculums to prepare our children to succeed in this changing and increasingly competitive global, economic, and geopolitical environment?

Open and honest debate of these issues is vital because we must make choices regarding the most effective way to invest increasingly limited educational resources. How can we determine which of those choices to pursue?   To answer that question for myself, I conducted an analysis of the return on educational investment of football versus music programs in our junior high and high schools. The analysis focused on four areas: individual personal and character development, learning and brain function of participants, impact on the school learning environment and culture, and the health of both the individual participant and the general public. I drew upon not only relevant research and data on both football and music’s impacts on those areas, but also on my extensive experience in both worlds as a former college and professional athlete, college athletic administrator, professor of sports administration, life-long musician, and founder and president of a music-related nonprofit organization.   AN HONEST EVALUATION What did I find? Despite the widely held notion that football has an exceptional ability to build character traits such as discipline, persistence, and personal responsibility, the fact is that involvement in music can teach and build the same traits. Further, both activities can help children gain confidence, establish an identity, and learn and practice tolerance. But there is also the issue of whether football’s “win at all costs” mentality actually teaches positive lessons in sportsmanship, honesty, and integrity. As football’s popularity and financial influence have increased, the ethos of far too many programs has evolved to where the game has become more about the end result of winning than the process of education and learning.   This is not to say that football cannot teach valuable lessons. But as the financial stakes have risen, leading to an increased emphasis on winning, it can be argued that football’s potential as a teaching and educational tool has declined in inverse proportion. Because of that excessive focus on winning, football’s potential to teach the creative decision-making and problem-solving skills so vital for success in today’s creative, interrelated global economy and world community has been diminished as adults have come to dominate every decision associated with the game. The game has become “too important” to leave any decision making to the kids.   In contrast, individual creativity is at the core of music programs. Music is not about winning, at least not nearly to the same degree as football. Given that neither its financial impact nor the newsmedia coverage it generates comes close to that of football, it has retained a processoriented, creativity-driven focus. In short, football has become more about the end result (winning), while music remains more about the process (education). Because football’s primary justification for inclusion in our educational system is that it is “about education,” this is of serious concern.

Regarding the impact of these activities on learning and brain function, it is clear that both football and music, as well as other extracurricular activities, can increase a young person’s level of engagement in school and college, leading to higher GPA s and better graduation rates. A 2009 study of New York City public schools found that those in the top third of graduation rates had 40 percent more faculty, physical space, and classroom space dedicated to the arts than those in the bottom third. A growing body of research also shows that playing music has a very direct impact on math, writing, logic, reading, and foreign language skills.Meanwhile, participation in football yields very few, if any, discernable academic skills, knowledge, or intellectual benefits.

Further, football is an activity that has a very narrow participation impact. More than half of students (girls) cannot, for all practical purposes, participate. And of the remaining students who can, only a small percentage are big enough, strong enough, or fast enough to play. This, coupled with the fact that football is not an activity that can be practiced for a lifetime, severely limits its potential as a lifelong learning tool. That is crucial, because one of the most important functions of our educational system is to promote and teach a love of lifelong learning. Not only is music open to all, but once learned, it is a skill that can be practiced for a lifetime. This leads to the conclusion that, in the area of learning and brain function, music is superior as an educational investment.

We must also consider the impact of these two activities on the school community and learning environment. While football may be seen as a powerful community-building activity, music has that same potential. But music, as a universal language, offers far greater potential as a platform for international educational opportunities and arts-integrated learning opportunities—things that football, as a distinctly American construct, simply cannot provide. In an age of an increasingly interrelated global economy and community, it is important that we instill in our children the skills necessary to navigate different cultures in this new reality. Music is far superior to football as a platform from which to provide the international cultural experiences necessary to develop such skills and understanding.

And what about the impact on health, both individual and public?   Of all the areas discussed, this may be the simplest in terms of framing the debate, as it boils down to two issues. First, should our schools and colleges concentrate the most resources on an activity for a small slice of elite athletes while pushing all other students to the sidelines as spectators? Or should the role of sports be to provide broad-based participation opportunities in activities that people can practice for a lifetime for purposes of public health in one of the most obese nations on the planet? Second, how can any educational institution, with a clear conscience, sponsor an activity that is detrimental to brain function? Put another way, should we support programs that serve as “vitamins” for brains or programs that “scramble” them?

Finally, should we continue to enable and empower coaches and others to continue to “sell” the dream of football fame and fortune when the facts tell us that the chances of making a living playing it are exceedingly remote—while the likelihood of incurring life-altering physical injuries is exceedingly high? Is that the type of “educational” investment that we should be making in our children?   Driving this debate is the increasing amount of research on the connection between football and brain trauma, particularly among children and young adults. As suggested by the previously referenced studies, while the evidence of music’s positive impact on brain function (it strengthens the neural connections associated with learning) is increasing, the research on and analysis of football’s impact is trending in the opposite direction. The fact is, as much as we may love football and as much as its culture is ingrained in the fabric of our communities and educational institutions, we simply cannot continue to ignore these trends.  

DECISION MAKING FOR TODAY’S WORLD

The stakes are too high to keep investing so much time, effort, and emotion in football simply because we have always done so. Does that type of investment make sense in today’s world? While it is fun to have a good football team that a school can rally around, the question is whether its entertainment value is enough to continue to justify our continued significant investment—often at the expense of other programs that clearly yield a far better educational return on investment.

The point of this essay is not to tear down football. This is about community values as reflected through educational policy and priorities. It is time for parents, community leaders, and educational decision makers, including college and university board members, to seriously consider the notion that, as an educational investment, football yields increasingly less value. It simply can no longer be denied that a compelling case can be made that music programs provide a far better return than football programs. If we are to successfully meet the many challenges of an increasingly competitive, global economic environment, we had better grasp that reality and rethink and restructure our nation’s educational priorities accordingly.

The days when such decisions could be made based solely on tradition and anecdotal evidence are over. The stakes are simply too high, and the costs of such narrowly focused decision making are far too great. With decreased resources comes a decrease in decisional margins of error. In other words, we have to make every dollar count.   In the end, one would hope that, with college and university board members providing the leadership in framing and debating this topic, the dialogue surrounding these issues and decisions will be more data-driven, reasoned, and honest at all levels of our educational system.

Football and the Institution’s Brand

Note: The following article was published in Trusteeship magazine on October 13, 2015: In the September/October issue of Trusteeship, John Gerdy, a former all-American basketball player who served as associate commissioner of the Southeastern Conference, asks, "Artists, Athletes, and Governing Boards: Who Plays and Who Wins?"  Below is an exceprt that focuses on institutional branding and athletics.

Many colleges and universities have long considered football an effective vehicle through which to build and strengthen their institutional brand. But here’s a question that every board member must consider: How do you build and enhance the brand of an educational institution by sponsoring, as a central component of your branding strategy, an activity that an increasing amount of research tells us is profoundly dangerous for student participants?

Boards should be cautious that, at some point, the evidence of the debilitating effects of football participation will become so clear, and the physical costs so great, public perception of colleges and universities that are willing to “sacrifice” students in the name of financial gain and branding purposes may shift. If institutions of higher education are so cavalier with the long-term health of their football athletes, what is to say that they won’t be similarly cavalier regarding the education, health, and well-being of all its students? Given the public’s increasing skepticism of the value of a college education in today’s world, another example of higher education being more about business and branding than education could come at great cost.

In fact, for an institution that is looking to significantly advance its educational brand, a case can be made that eliminating football shows far more educational vision, courage, and responsibility. Such a decision will help educational leadership get out ahead of what will be, despite the denials of the “football industrial complex,” a steady increase in the public’s distaste for a game that, while certainly entertaining, is intensely brutal and physically debilitating for students.

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.

Let's Talk About Sports' Role in Our High Schools

hs-sports-2

On August 8, 2015, the Editorial board of the Lancaster (PA) Newspapers (LNP) printed an essay (“On stress and high school sports”) that called for a community-wide discussion of the role of sports in our high schools. In strong and direct terms, the board raised some very important, fundamental and long overdue questions regarding the role of athletics in our high schools. In lamenting what high school sports has become, they used terms such as “something is seriously amiss”, “this is insanity” and asked the following critical question: “What is the purpose of school athletics?” Following is the first of three essays I was asked to write in response to the issues they raised that appeared in the Sunday August 23, 2015 edition of LNP. 

Let’s Talk About Sports’ Role in Our High Schools

In a perfect world, all high school activities would be fully funded. But when it comes to establishing and funding educational priorities and programs, it is clear that we no longer live in a perfect world.

Today, schools are subject to growing pressure to meet increased standards and expectations to provide our children with an education worthy of the 21st century. These demands have to be met in an environment of declining resources. Our world is changing at breathtaking speed and the educational challenges inherent in responding to that change are daunting.

Communities and school boards must be more open, honest, thoughtful and strategic regarding how to allocate resources, including for sports and other extracurricular activities.

When program cuts are necessary, priorities must be set and difficult choices made. And because these challenges and funding gaps will only increase, these decisions are only going to become more difficult.

These decisions must be made with the recognition that America’s economy has changed from one based on industrial might to one driven by technology, creativity, collaboration and innovation. Simply put, every issue we face - whether relating to health care, the environment or geopolitics - is becoming more complex in this increasingly fast paced and interconnected world. To effectively address those increasingly complex challenges, we must develop in our populace a corresponding increase in creativity and the ability to think at a higher level.

Fundamental questions regarding which programs to fund and how much each should receive must focus on which activities garner the best educational return on investment in today’s world. Should funding for elite sports, for example, be scaled back in favor of more broad-based sports programs, or theater, art and music? We can no longer blindly continue to sponsor activities based only on anecdotal evidence, simply because we have always done so or because a particular activity’s “lobby” screams the loudest.

If we are to make strategic, effective and responsible decisions regarding educational priorities and funding, we must rethink the criteria upon which we have made those decisions. Decisions of such magnitude must also be guided by fact, data and research. Fortunately, there is a growing amount of research on the impact of elite sports, and in particular, football, on student learning and engagement, brain function, academic environment and health to draw from.

In the end, the dialogue surrounding these decisions must be more thorough, reasoned, honest and data driven. With increased expectations and decreased resources come a reduction in the acceptable margin of error. We have to make every education dollar count. Just as a business must continually evaluate every component of its enterprise to determine if that element is relevant, productive and continues to meet the justifications for its existence, so too must our educational institutions. Simply because sports are entertaining and have been a part of the academic enterprise for over a century does not exempt them from such evaluation and scrutiny.

This is an important and timely discussion. The stakes are simply too high to continue to sponsor activities simply because we have always done so, not matter how entertaining.

But all of this context and dialogue is of no use without the courage and commitment to go where the logic, truth and data take us. Because sports are so influential in our schools, we must critically assess their impact on our educational institutions and our society. This is no different from any other American institution. From our health care system to our welfare system, old ideas, programs, institutions and philosophies must continually be examined, refined and, if appropriate, restructured. And the fundamental standard of evaluation is utility. Do these institutions continue to serve the public in relevant and timely ways?

If, for example, athletics are exceeding their educational potential and expectations, then we should be investing even more effort, resources and emotion in them. But what if they are not? What, as parents, taxpayers and citizens, should we do? This is the fundamental frame of reference through which this discussion should take place.

Despite the fact that some of the answers may be uncomfortable or inconvenient, we should welcome this discussion and analysis because, if we approach it honestly, the end result will be better schools serving our children and communities more effectively. In the end, isn’t that what we all want and what our nation needs?