Full Article posted here
LNP recently launched a new Schools section to be published the last Saturday of each month. According to LNP, “Pages will be chock full of honor rolls, classroom projects, student-of-the-month recognitions, choral achievements and school-initiated community programs.”
This is a significant step toward elevating the place and profile of science, technology, community service, music and the arts, not only in our schools but in our community.
It represents an opportunity for our community to recognize and support our schools, teachers and students in a way that heretofore has hardly existed. This is why it is important that we, as a community, support this effort.
It is fair to say that if a complete stranger to our society read a newspaper on a daily basis, his or her overwhelming impression would be that the primary purpose of our schools — and in particular, our high schools — was to underwrite and support sports teams.
The fact is, sports are nowhere near as central to the fundamental purpose of an educational institution as are science, technology, math and the activities that nurture creativity.
As entertaining as sports are and as much as we love them, it is far more important that we nurture and support those academic activities that are most central to the educational purpose and mission of our schools.
Bear Bryant, the legendary football coach at the University of Alabama, once said, “50,000 people do not come to campus to watch a history lecture.”
While that may be true, the core purpose of our educational system is to educate young people by nurturing in them the skills necessary to be productive citizens in the workplace and in the community. And it is far more important for schools to produce students proficient in science, math, technology and the arts than it is to produce football or basketball players.
How we cover and celebrate athletic contests versus the incredible things teachers and students are doing in the classroom, studio or community, provides a very visible example of community priorities.
LNP, as Lancaster’s main newspaper, has enormous impact and influence. Its new Schools section sends the clear message that academic achievement is important and valued in our community.
And the more we celebrate those achievements, the more our students will strive to achieve, creating a positive feedback loop. A little recognition from the community newspaper can go a long way in making academic achievement and community service “cool.”
So what can we do to support LNP’s efforts in this regard?
A common complaint of business leaders is that there aren’t enough potential employees with the necessary academic skills to add significant value to their companies. That being the case, businesses would be well served by supporting the Schools section through advertising. They might also begin to sponsor or underwrite, in partnership with LNP or schools, various academic, art or community service awards and recognition activities.
There are also things that individual citizens can do. First, take the time to read the section. What you will discover is that we have an incredible number of young people doing amazing things in science, math, the arts and community service.
And when you read of something amazing that a student has accomplished, tell your friends and neighbors about it. Better yet, take the time to jot a quick congratulatory note to the young person. And when you hear of a student doing something extraordinary, report it to LNP so it can be covered.
Highlighting these accomplishments may inspire parents and other citizens to pursue other initiatives that celebrate academic excellence. Perhaps it will result in more discussion and recognition regarding academic and educational issues in our schools. Or maybe it will lead to more schools establishing academic, arts or science, rather than simply athletic, halls of fame.
While it is certainly nice to celebrate the athletic accomplishments of students, it is critical that we recognize, celebrate and support the academic, artistic and community service accomplishments of our young people as well.
Being recognized by the community for one’s success is a tremendous boost to self-esteem. All of our children, not simply our athletes, are contributing to our schools and community in meaningful and important ways that deserve recognition.
LNP has provided our community with a tremendous opportunity to not just advance the mission of our schools but to make Lancaster a place that embraces education, science, technology, the arts and community service.
Symbols and advocacy are important. They raise public awareness that in turn can lead to action. Our support for LNP’s Schools section will convey the clear sense that Lancaster County values student accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, the arts and community service every bit as much as athletic accomplishment.
In evaluating its athletics program, the board must consider fiscal conditions, the welfare of athletes, institutional impact, opportunity costs, and brand risks associated with athletics, as well as the changing public environment and attitudes about the role of athletics in our institutions and culture.
Given the enormous financial stakes, intense media scrutiny, and the pressure to win at any cost, boards should know if the supposed educational and character-building benefits that accrue to athletes are real.
The most fundamental responsibility educational institutions have to all students, including athletes, is to provide a legitimate opportunity to earn a meaningful educational and social experience in a safe and secure environment. Boards must determine whether their institutions are delivering on that promise.
The relationship between intercollegiate athletics and higher education has always been less than comfortable. But like an athlete’s body that eventually wears down after years of tears, bumps, and bruises, the forces pulling at that relationship have become exceedingly strained. Is the relationship broken? From soaring budgets to seemingly never-ending scandals to mounting legal pressures and growing concerns about athletics’ impact on campus culture and about the rights and physical and academic welfare of student-athletes, it is no stretch to say that the ROI (return on investment) of intercollegiate athletics is being questioned and challenged at institutions of all types and sizes.
In this environment, all boards, regardless of conference and divisional affiliation, need to undertake a thorough, clear-eyed analysis of their athletic programs’ alignment with institutional mission and strategy. The fundamental question: Do they contribute to institutional mission in relevant and timely ways? Is the amount of spending on athletics proportional to its contribution to mission and its educational value?
Make no mistake, significant upheaval is on the horizon. If higher education leaders don’t manage and structure that change, outside forces will. Here are five key questions to support the review process.
DO YOU HAVE ACCURATE INFORMATION?
Boards must be persistent in determining that the information they receive from institutional personnel truly reflects concerns about fiscal conditions, the welfare of athletes, institutional impact, opportunity costs, and brand risks associated with athletics. Are boards accurately assessing the changing public environment and attitudes about the role of athletics in our institutions and culture? Further, does your college or university really know how all of your constituents feel about the role and impact of athletics on campus? Or, does the board simply assume it knows the level of support for athletics, its cost, and impact on academic values and campus culture? For example, can you assume that because a program does not award athletic scholarships or spend lavishly on coaches’ salaries, that its potential to undermine academic values and institutional mission and strategy is minimal? Will de-emphasizing a sport adversely impact alumni giving and support? How do you know? Perhaps such a change would actually attract additional, more academically oriented donors.
In short, in a rapidly changing environment, it is unwise to make long-term, strategic decisions based on age-old anecdotes or simply because “we’ve always done it this way.”
ARE THE SUPPOSED BENEFITS RELEVANT AND TIMELY?
In conducting a thorough ROI analysis, it is tempting to consider various costs associated with athletics. While critical, it’s equally important to examine whether athletic departments are delivering the benefits long used to justify their place on campus.
For example, a primary defense for sponsorship of athletics, and in particular football, is that it serves as the “front porch” of the institution. But while the games provide compelling entertainment, it’s fair to say that much of what the public sees is not pretty. Increasingly, what the public and news media call attention to is hypocrisy, athlete exploitation, exorbitant spending, academic fraud, and, in the words of author Taylor Branch, in his widely read Atlantic magazine article “The Shame of College Sports,” “an unmistakable whiff of plantation.”
Is athletics a brand element that will advance the educational mission in the 21st century? With increasing evidence about brain trauma associated with football— as well as other sports, including women’s soccer—do colleges and universities want to highlight and celebrate an activity that places students at significant risk of life-altering brain damage?
Boards would be well served to consider whether they are approaching a point at which the physical toll for young people has become so clear that public perception of institutions that willingly “sacrifice” not only students but also their academic souls in the name of athletic glory may have shifted. Consider that in the early 1900s, boxing was one of America’s most popular sports. The NCAA sponsored boxing until 1960, when it became clear that the risk outweighed the benefits. Are we there yet with football?
Given the enormous financial stakes, intense media scrutiny, and the pressure to win at any cost, boards should know whether the supposed educational and character-building benefits that accrue to athletes are real. Have intercollegiate athletics become more about winning at any cost than about the process of education? Given that one of the leading justifications for athletics on campus is that sports supplement the educational process and instills positive character traits in participants, it is imperative that this question is answered.
Educators and sports advocates claim a series of positive impacts to justify athletics’ place on campus. Boards must evaluate whether these oft-stated benefits— including learning discipline, persistence, and personal responsibility— continue to apply in the 21st century, and if so, whether athletic departments are, in fact, delivering them.
Or, stated differently, can universities continue to sponsor and tolerate such a highly visible activity that on many levels appears to contradict their purposes?
DO WE UNDERSTAND THE TRUE COSTS?
Traditionally, discussions surrounding the cost of athletics have focused almost exclusively on hard finances. But as information relating to finances becomes more transparent, it is clear that athletics has not been as fiscally sound an investment as long believed. Virtually every financial trend, throughout every NCAA division, points to athletics expenses increasing not only at a faster rate than generated revenues, but also far outstripping increases in overall institutional spending. Further, not only is the expense per student-athlete continuing to rise, but the total athletic expenditures as a percentage of total institutional expenses also continues to increase. The fact is, there are no institutions in either Division II or III, and only a small handful of Division I institutions, where generated revenues exceed expenses. And by all indications, institutional deficit spending on athletics, already significant, will continue to grow.
Boards must consider whether this is a sustainable model and how such trends impact not only educational opportunity costs but also, in an age of rising student debt, the use of student fees to underwrite athletics. Per-student fees (assessed on all enrolled students to support the athletics program) are on many campuses in the hundreds of dollars, and in some cases are over $1,000 annually. When financial aid is considered, not only are students and their families supporting intercollegiate athletics programs that they may not patronize—let alone participate in—but state and federal governments are, as well. (See “A Question For” by John T. Casteen III in Trusteeship, July/August 2016.)
Regardless of an institution’s level of investment in athletics, it is critical that university leaders consider whether that amount is appropriate and commensurate with the academic and other educational benefits derived from athletics programs. Are potential educational opportunity costs associated with athletics spending detrimental to the development of other academic programs? When it comes to athletics within an educational institution, is bigger necessarily better? Does participation in a championship-winning team provide greater educational benefit to an athlete than participation in a nonchampionship- winning team? And in an age of rising educational expectations and financial pressures, is it prudent to continue to engage in increasingly expensive efforts to “keep up with the Joneses,” a practice that occurs, to varying degrees, in all NCAA divisions?
Finally, does the athletic “culture” align with the institution’s? Research tells us that even at small, elite liberal arts institutions, sports’ impact on admissions, academic performance, and campus culture is significant, because athletes tend to make up a larger percentage of the student body than at major Division I institutions. In other words, it is important that boards, regardless of their institution’s size or NCAA divisional affiliation, consider exactly how athletics impact educational values, campus culture, and institutional brand.
WHAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ATHLETES?
An educational institution’s most fundamental responsibility to every student is twofold. First, to provide an opportunity to earn a quality academic credential, and second, to keep students safe and healthy while on campus by establishing a safe and secure learning and social environment.
There is little question that the academic and social experiences of scholarship athletes at far too many institutions have been woefully inadequate and, in some cases, fraudulent. The news media have documented instances of institutions admitting underprepared athletes and providing “bogus” classes and majors, all in the name of achieving athletic glory. When combined with the excessive athletic training and time demands placed on athletes, their academic and social experiences may have little in common with those of the rest of the students.
To think that this doesn’t occur, in some form, at nearly every campus in America would be misguided. Are athletes being held to the same academic, social, behavioral, and judicial standards that apply to all students in order to form a healthy, functioning academic community? Or does “athletic privilege and exception” exist on their campuses? Boards should know.
And if questions regarding institutional responsibility for providing a legitimate academic and social experience are not enough, their ability to ensure students’ health and safety is now in question, too.
The primary driver of this conversation on many campuses is football, although depending on the institution and region of the country, one could add basketball, baseball, ice hockey, or lacrosse. Football’s engrained tradition, enormous entertainment appeal, and economic clout make it the unmistakable driver of the athletics enterprise at all levels. Football is the elephant in the room in the debate regarding the role of sports not only on campus but in our society. And the fact is, the rapidly accumulating evidence about football and brain trauma has raised the question of the game’s place in the academy to a new level. It is now a moral issue.
How does this square with institutional mission if we sponsor and celebrate an activity that research tells us can be profoundly dangerous and debilitating?
At the end of the day, boards must determine whether their institutions are delivering on the many promises they’ve made to student-athletes.
DO WE HAVE THE COURAGE AND CONVICTION TO LEAD?
Our society looks to higher education to provide broad cultural leadership and direction regarding the issues of the day, including the appropriate role of sports in our schools and society at large. To underestimate the impact of athletics on the larger issues of the public’s perception of the value of education versus athletics, as well as higher education’s ability to effectively fulfill its public mission, would be shortsighted. By directly addressing these issues on their campuses, boards can reaffirm the primacy of academic and educational excellence. This is a seminal moment for college and university leaders. It is a national teaching opportunity we cannot afford to waste.
But before boards can provide such leadership, they must look internally and ask whether they are prepared and have the courage and conviction to go where the resulting dialogue, logic, and data lead them. If, for example, it is determined that the athletics department is effectively contributing to institutional mission, perhaps we should invest more heavily in it. But what if it becomes clear that it is not? What if the various costs and institutional risks associated with athletics have come to outweigh its benefits? What should a responsible board do? Courage and conviction will be crucial. If there is any American institution that must demonstrate clearly that academic excellence outweighs athletic glory, it must be higher education.
Much has been said and written recently regarding the Manheim Township School District Board of Directors, particularly about its fiscal transparency but also about its provision of music and art education.
The music programs offered to township students have been steadily reduced or eliminated in the past several years. This has occurred despite growing evidence of music’s value as an educational tool.
Seemingly every week another study is released documenting how music education not only teaches character skills — teamwork, discipline, personal responsibility, innovation and creativity — but also improves performance in math, reading, language and logic. These are precisely the characteristics and skills young people need to succeed in the rapidly changing global economy and world community of the 21st century. My purpose here is not to extol the value of music education, but rather to highlight an important lesson in community and educational activism.
Several weeks ago, the school board announced that some music education programs that had been cut would be restored. Some people claim the restoration is being made because the board is about to be audited by the state. While that indeed may be one reason, another important factor is the pressure on the board from parents and concerned citizens. For a long time, they have been active and vocal in drawing attention to the cuts and in pushing the board to restore them.
So this column is less about the value of music education and more about how individual citizens and communities can directly influence educational priorities, programming and funding, particularly in the area of extracurricular activities.
We live in a time of rising standards and expectations for our schools to provide students with an education that will prepare them for the future. Complicating that challenge is the fact that we also live in a time of increasingly scarce educational resources. Virtually every school district in the country is being forced to make hard choices concerning which programs and activities to sponsor and which to cut.
Federal and state mandates dictate most program priorities and funding. But in the area of extracurricular activities, local authorities have the most freedom to prioritize and fund programs. That said, it seems that music and art most often end up being scaled back or eliminated.
Yet parents and citizens of Manheim Township — through hard work and the persistence needed to keep the issue alive — made the public aware of the value of music education to the point where the school board felt compelled to reconsider many of its cuts.
If you believe in the value of music education — not only for current students but also for developing a well-rounded, intelligent and creative populace — Manheim Township’s music lesson is this: Individual citizens, by banding together in a strategic, direct advocacy effort, can influence and even demand that our schools and communities invest more in music education.
Here’s what you can do: Write a letter to the editor of the newspaper. Call a board member, or attend a board meeting and voice your concerns. Ask questions and demand answers.
Attend a school concert, regardless of whether you have a child performing. It is wonderfully fulfilling and inspiring entertainment.
Start a Facebook page as a way to network with friends who share similar concerns and dreams.
Ultimately, what is occurring in Manheim Township has less to do with appreciation for the value of musical education and more to do with community and educational activism. Manheim Township has shown us that, in the area of educational priorities and funding, individual citizens can make a difference.
Those who believe in the power of music as an educational tool must stop bemoaning cuts to programs and start fighting to restore them. The citizens of Manheim Township have provided a wonderful lesson in how to do so.
Evidence Is Clear: Tackle Football Is Too Risky
By, John Gerdy | As seen in LancasterOnline.com
As the son of a high school football coach, a former college athletic administrator and someone who has written extensively on football’s role in our schools and culture, I’ve been around, observed, contemplated and researched the game for more than 50 years. Naturally, I was very interested in seeing “Concussion,” the recently released movie starring Will Smith.
Smith portrays Dr. Bennet Omalu, who discovered clear evidence that professional football players were susceptible to a progressive degenerative brain disease — chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), caused by repetitive blows to the head — and chronicles his efforts to alert the NFL and the rest of the world regarding that link.
Given my deep familiarity with the subject, the movie didn’t shed much new light on the details of football and brain damage. One notable exception however, had more to do with how to explain the link. In attempting to illustrate the connection, Dr. Omalu used as an example how a woodpecker pounds its head repeatedly against hard surfaces, yet does not damage its brain. That is because nature provided what amounts to a natural “shock absorber” in the form of its tongue, which wraps around its brain upon each impact. Humans do not have any equivalent shock absorber, prompting Omalu to declare in no uncertain terms that man was not made to play football.
That statement crystallizes the debate over whether to allow children to participate in football or for junior high and high schools to continue to sponsor it.
This is really about anatomy and the fact that you can’t fool Mother Nature. Our brains, the organ that makes us human, are simply not designed for football. And no matter how hard many well-meaning people are attempting to make football “suitably safe,” the fact is the forces of nature and anatomy will prevail.
While the football industrial complex’s public relations machine is running full throttle in its effort to convince parents that advancements in equipment, diagnosis, testing, protocol and tackling techniques have made the game safe, the cold, hard truth is that these claims are being made with little concrete, scientific evidence to back them up. Even on the most basic of issues, there is widespread disagreement, an example being how long a victim of a concussion should be held out of action. Is it a week? Two weeks? A month? A season? We simply do not know.
Further, all of the attention being placed on concussions is somewhat misguided. Unquestionably, concussions are extremely damaging to the brain. However, the larger issue is the brain damage sustained by repeated subconcussive blows to the head. Subconcussive blows clearly rattle the brain, thus causing cumulative trauma and damage, but not to the extent where the negative impact is immediately and outwardly noticed.
It’s brain death by a million cuts.
In other words, your child could be slowly, methodically damaging his brain without showing any immediate signs of doing so.
Until it is too late.
In short, while we have little idea of the effectiveness of various treatments and safety measures, what is absolutely not in doubt is that playing tackle football is damaging to the brain. That is indisputable. The only question is the extent of the damage.
So here’s the question: Why are so many people fighting so hard to deny the science and promote suspect and unproven safety improvements to continue to justify allowing children to play what is clearly a brutal sport that has been proven to cause brain damage?
In deciding to allow a child to participate, parents face a balancing act deciding whether the dangers outweigh the potential benefits of participation. That is difficult. But there are many other sports (including flag football) and activities, such as band and theater, that instill character traits such as discipline, teamwork skills and personal responsibility. Tackle football does not have the market cornered on teaching those lessons and skills.
Meanwhile, we have age limits and laws designed to protect children from a host of activities that have been proven to be dangerous to them, including smoking and alcohol consumption. Workplace safety laws, for instance, prohibit minors from operating certain kinds of equipment.
So why is football not prohibited for children?
Just because your child wants to play at the age of 12 or 14 does not mean you have to let him. What would you say, for example, if your child came to you at that age and stated, “I’d like to begin smoking cigarettes and dropping acid”? With such certainty regarding the link between football and brain damage and such uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of safety measures and treatment, why take the chance?
Ultimately, this is about anatomy, child safety and parental responsibility.
I’d strongly suggest that every parent with a child playing football or interested in playing football see the movie “Concussion.” And afterward, look in the mirror and ask yourself. “Was my child made to play football?”
