Is Eliminating Sports in Schools the Answer?

     A few years ago, a new principle of Premont High School in Texas was faced with a school failing so badly at its task of educating its students that it was in threat of being closed down for good. The actions he took to try to save his school were extraordinary.

     Among several actions he undertook to save a school over $400,000 in debt, while still educating it's students and adding two science labs, the most dramatic of all was the elimination of all sports for the following year. It was estimated doing so would save the school about $150,000 that year and allow them to focus on the task of educating their students. 

A good week in Premont

     As you would expect, there were many who disagreed with this extreme approach. At a school where the daily average percentage of absent students was around 20%, many parents and students alike claimed the only reason the attendance was even that high was due to sports. Without sports, no one would come to school, they said. 

     North America is unique in the world in regards to how sports are integrated as a part of our school system. With the dismal ranking our students achieve when compared to other countries, many who spend much less dollars per student than we do, the question must be asked, is school the proper place for youth sports?

     I grew up playing sports in school. During my grade schools years, mainly hockey and baseball were the sports offered. These were club sports at that age. Both cost money. Once I moved into middle school, sports were offered by the schools. I was involved in american football, then soccer and eventually, basketball. Sports were a significant part of my school life, even into college.

     Yet, with failing schools in America and growing expense of playing sports and the facilities required, it may be time for a serious discussion about whether or not sports have a proper place within the school system.

Premont football

     There are pros and cons to playing sports and likewise, for the main engagement of sports to be run by the public school system. There can be no denying the benefits of playing sports for the youth who play it. Learning hard work, teamwork and dealing with disappointment are all important aspects to becoming a mature adult. No activity teaches a child these things with more intensity than sport. The health benefits are obvious as well.

     There are of course negatives. The damage that can be done to a child by a poorly motivated coach are much more devastating than many would let on. Coaches are allowed to treat students in ways that would cause other school staff to be dismissed. Being bullied by the resident jerk in your class is wholly different than being bullied by your coach. Sadly, it happens every single day. And the physical damage that can be caused to growing bodies through repetitive and overly competitive training and playing can have lasting and negative effects on the student athletes.

     However, are the benefits of youth sport worth the cost in time, money, risk and health? I think they are. Nothing is without risk. We must always weight the cost.

     So the question isn't to play sport or not but rather, where is the proper place for sports in our society?

     There are two main benefits to having sports controlled by the public school system. This system allows almost anyone who wants to participate in the sport to play at some level. Of course this sin't the case throughout the entire United States or every sport offered. There are some schools that have tryouts because their systems can only handle a certain number of athletes. But it stands that many students who want to play are given the opportunity in school who would not have the same opportunity if sport were left solely to clubs. In many schools, ability isn't the deciding factor and cost is kept to a minimum because of the offsetting of the cost by the school's budget.

     The other claimed benefit is that having sport in school generates interest in attending school that may not be there for many students. This was one of the main arguments that pressed against the principle of the school in Texas. They argued that having the football program was, for many student athletes, the only reason they came to school at all. This, from a school that ran a daily average of 20% absenteeism.

     Yet, there are negatives to having sport in schools. The amount of time taken away from class by sport activities is substantial. From pep rallies, to team travel time and early dismissals due to tournaments, there is a definite impact on education time, not just for the athletes themselves, but for every student. For the athlete, it becomes even more of a burden. There is very little time to do homework or study for tests during the season. Especially for basketball and football players.

     Cost is another issue. Just because having sports in schools makes it affordable for students who might otherwise not be able to play a particular sport, it doesn't mean the sport is affordable. The costs do not change. What changes is who is paying for it. We often hear complaints about how much we spend per student in our public schools and yet fail to produce good students. What portion of that expenditure is going towards sports rather than education?  In the Premont school in Texas, the estimation was about $150,000 per year. This was for a small school district. The amounts for a large school district in a metropolitan area would be considerably higher. And this amount didn't include the upkeep that continued to be needed for the facilities. Nor would it have considered how much the School District could have recouped through the sale of facilities it would no longer need if sports were removed permanently.

     I tried to determine how much my local school district spent on sports overall but looking through the budget, it was impossible to tell. The budget is not itemized in that way. If I had to guess, I would say it was in the millions. This is still a small percentage of the overall budget. But it is a significant amount of money nonetheless.

     This is money that is collected from taxes and other sources for the education of the students yet is not used for education in any way. In fact, it could be argued, it is being used for activities that actually work to hinder the very education it was collected to provide.

Club sports start at a young age

 
      What would the alternative be? Creating privately funded sports clubs in each city would provide the opportunity to play sports while not interfering in schools. As one can imagine, there are positives and negatives to this situation as well. There may not be as much opportunity for less athletic students in clubs as there is in some school districts. The costs involved for the athlete would be higher than they are in the schools. This might keep some athletes from being able to participate as well. So you may have lower participation than currently is the case. But, you may not. There is always the possibility for the clubs to provide scholarships for athletes and the creation of leagues for players who are not able to play competitively with the better athletes. That would be up the people running the clubs.

     The benefits of having a club run athletics are numerous. The club can focus more on player development than simply winning championships. With athletes joining as children and remaining in the same programs through high school, the chance for proper development of the athlete is much greater than the current system. There would be greater emphasis in the clubs to provide quality training at the younger age levels because there is ownership of the program throughout that child's sports career. I firmly believe that the United States would develop even better athletes than we currently do, through a club based program rather than the current school based programs.

     But the largest effect would be how it changes the school system. Imagine a high school without sports. Imagine the change in the facilities. Imagine the changes to the the staff. Imagine the difference in the transportation systems. Imagine the difference in focus within the school day. Imagine how much time would actually be required each day to properly educate the students of the school. Imagine a school system where the students spend a third less of the day in school, with no homework.  What could be accomplished with an extra 4 to 6 hours a day?  The student would be free to join a sports club, and not be arriving at home after 6 pm to eat supper and then hit their homework. The student would be free to spend time learning an instrument or working a job, or spending time with their family or friends.

     This concept might be a huge shock to your way of thinking. But just spend a few minutes really thinking about how the typical school day would be effected if sports were removed from the responsibility of the school system.

Premont graduation

     When one weighs the negatives and positives, I cannot see a better way to help solve the issue of education in this country. With this one single change, we would be able to develop more highly educated students, students better prepared for their careers and better athletes. Accomplishing all this with potentially, a smaller burden on the tax payer.


    It at least deserves consideration. It worked in Premont. Attendance increased. Test scores increased. The budget decreased. The school was saved. Just think what it could do for your local school.

   

The Story Behind The Story: Adidas, Puma and Uhlsport

     This is a new series I am beginning here at Nyk.pm. It is called "The Story Behind The Story".  I love getting the real story behind some of the common things in our lives that we take for granted. English phraseology has always captivated me. I have always wanted to be the one to create a catch-phrase or a slang term.  Living in North Dakota made that very difficult. However, with the advent of the internet, it might be possible. Still working on that. Regardless, there are many phrases and products and stories we have grown up with but have no idea how they came to be or maybe even what they really mean. Sometimes it is nothing special, but sometimes they are quite fascinating. As I come across stories that are fascinating to me, I will share them in this series. I hope you enjoy them. And, please, if you do, share them on the social media site of your choice. And don't forget to follow me on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and G+. The links are at the top of the page, on the right.

     Now onto the story behind the story of Adidas, Puma and Uhlsport.

     Likely, most everyone is familiar with the German brand, Adidas. They provide gear for all major sports in the US with their focus, historically, being soccer and more specifically, athletic shoes. Likewise, many will be familiar with Puma. This German brand of sportswear is no where near as popular as Adidas but you will see the brand in many sports, including soccer. Again, this brand began with athletic shoes. Uhlsport is an even more obscure German brand working almost exclusively around the world with soccer. They also supply gear for International Handball and European basketball, however, these are done under the brand names Kempa and Spalding, respectively. Uhlsport also began in the athletic shoe business but quickly transitioned to goalkeeper gloves and apparel.

     But what is the story behind these three German powerhouse brands?  How did Germany become the location for world famous athletic gear? And how does WWII play into the whole story? Let me tell you.

Adolf Dassler

     What now is Adidas began as Gebruder Dassler Schuhfabrik (Dassler Brothers Shoe Factory) in 1924.  Operating in the small town of Herzogenaurach, Germany, the two Dassler brothers, Adolf and Rudolf, began creating shoes specifically for sports. The business grew steadily until the start of the Second World War. Karl Uhl, the founder of Uhlsport, worked for the two Dassler brothers.

     There was always competition between the two brothers and tension between the brother's wives. The story goes that this reached a decisive moment due to an apparent misunderstanding during an Allied air strike on Herzogenaurach. During this particular air strike, Rudolf and his wife were hiding in a bomb shelter when Adi and his wife climbed in. Adi exclaimed "The dirty bastards are back again.", supposedly referring to the Allied bombers. Rudolf, however, was convinced that Adi was referring to him and his wife. From this point on, every event that happened to the brothers which included Rudolf being sent to the front lines, being arrested by the German military and being held as a POW by Allied forces, and accusations of theft and adultery added to the feud between the two brother's. All the while, Adi continued to build the brother's business. In 1948, the brother's finally split the company. Rudolf moving to the other side of the river in Herzogenaurach and splitting the town's allegiances between Adolf's company and Rudolf's.

Rudolf Dassler

     Rudolf formed PUMA Schuhfabrick Rudolf Dassler in 1948 and Adolf formed Adi Dassler ADIDAS Sportshcuhfabrik in 1949. This same year, Karl Uhl left to begin his own company, Haase und Uhl OHG in the town of Balingen, Germany.

     The feud between the Dassler brothers raged on for decades even while both companies found success. The situation was so extreme that some places in the town only catered to people who wore either Puma or Adidas shoes. There were Puma diners and Adidas diners. A Puma bakery and an Adidas bakery. Adidas employees were not even allowed to date, much less marry, Puma employees.

     It finally ended officially, in 2009 when employees from both companies played a friendly soccer match.  The only reference to who won the match was the score, 7-5, with no winner noted. Probably the best idea.

     While the story of Adolf and Rudolf is tragic, affecting many lives over many decades, there is a positive to come about through the whole event; three magnificent soccer companies. The innovation and history that have been made by Adidas, Puma and Uhlsport are things of legend, benefiting more people around the world than they hurt in their hometown of Herzogenaurach.

     So there's that.

Something to Die For...

     Today I would like to bring back a post from my previous blog, The Blackhorse Inn.  This was from early on in the beginning of that blog but I really like the questions it raises. I never did come back to it and arrive at any concrete conclusions but maybe re-posting this will afford me the opportunity to do so.

     Let me know your thoughts in the comment section below, I would love to hear from you. Also, please share on your favorite social media site if you are so inclined. Thanks!

     No onto "Something To Die For..."

     Last night I was listening to my iPod and on came a song whose chorus stated, "Give me something to die for..."  We often hear the phrase, "Give me something to live for," but this other way of saying it seems more profound.       There are plenty of things out there to live for, there is no short supply, but that rarely seems to be enough for most people.

Russian soldier rallying troops,
killed seconds late

     I remember reading a book about the English Hooligans.  The conclusion of the book was that these English males (mostly) needed a sense of belonging which, in the past, was supplied by National pride during times of war such as WWI and II.  With the lengthening time since those wars, men in England looked to something else to bring back that National pride.  They found it in their football clubs.  But it wasn't enough to just go to the matches and support their clubs.  They had to move it to a feeling of war.  With all the prejudices that arise in war and the colors and violence.  We have often focused on the English but there are smaller versions of this all around Europe.  It seems that a club worth living for wasn't enough.  These people needed a club worth dying for.  So they raised their support up to a level that certainly could bring the possibility of death.     
   

Football Hooligan

     Are these football fanatics an isolated example?  I am beginning to wonder.  We see it in the military, in militias, on the roads, in gangs, in the political realm, in religious conflicts, and even in pacifists.  When I started to think it through it was quite amazing to me how pervasive this idea is throughout all of culture.  It manifests itself in many different ways.  There are violent gangs, there are militias and warlords, there are homicide bombers, there are vigilantes, and there are even peace protesters who put themselves in harms way.    What do all of these people have in common?  They all seem to have a need for something more, something to die for.  If a leader asks his people to live for him, some follow and some don't but nobody does it with much vigor, but when a leader asks his people to die for him, the support is overwhelming and intense.  We see this most often at times of war.  When a speech is made by a president or a prime minister and the people rally around the cause.  When a country goes a long time without some life and death situation, the people seem to lose the passion for life.  Things get dull.

     Then I thought about the fact that we are all created in God's image and wondered about what this idea said about God.  Is He interested only in having something so important that it is worth dying for?   And is that the sort of passion that He instills in us?  That we have this inner desire to be involved in something so important that it is worth dying for?  And what happens when there isn't anything like that?

     I can see two things ending up happening.  Either people become self absorbed and ultimately depressed and live in a sense of hopelessness and apathy or they begin to attribute greater importance to lesser things.  The classic example would be the English Hooligans.  They, without a real thing of value in their lives to pour their passion into, elevated football to a thing of utmost importance.  Important enough to die for.  And many did.  Some people increase risk through dangerous activities.  And some take usually mundane protests to the extreme.

     I think that all of these things point to an inner passion that drives us to finding something in our lives of such paramount importance that it is worthy of death itself.  Somehow it seems that death is more important to us than life.  And life, without the threat of death does not interest us.  To the point where we will go to great lengths to invent things that involve the threat of death.  Ultimately, for some, choosing to die by suicide rather than live life without that thing that is worthy of dying for.

     Of course it is not that I am saying we want to be oppressed and live under the threat of death such as what might occur in an abusive relationship or slavery or tyranny.  No one desires that, but what I am talking about is a positive thing that we can believe in, get behind and support to the point of death if necessary.  You might ask how gangs or drug cartels can be positive.  To most of us they are not positive but when you hear the people involved in them talk, they view it as positive.  A family sort of system.  They belong to something bigger than themselves.     

     I think that is the key to the whole thing.  Each one of us knows within that we are not the biggest thing in the universe.  We all know that there is something bigger than us out there.  And it is a burning desire within each of us to belong to that thing that is bigger than we are.  There are millions of things that people choose to be a part of but, as a Christian, I believe the thing we are desiring so deeply is God, Himself.  That thing inside us is really desiring to be a part of God.  And don't think that isn't dangerous.  Don't think that is void of the possibility of death.  In fact, it requires standing against evil.  Evil that certainly is not remiss in killing when the opportunity presents itself.  Actually, belonging to God requires death.  And in death, victory.  It seems to be what we are made for.   

     So how do we work that into what we do?  Without turning it into some new "holy war".  How do we keep it positive?  Or, maybe it is God's plan to change our propensity towards death to a deep desire for life.  And if it is, I can only imagine that happening in a place completely different from this place.  Someplace like Heaven, maybe?  I haven't finished thinking about this and don't have any conclusions to offer you in closing.  So please bring your own comments to the table.  I think this could be very interesting.

Sam and Page's "Coming Out" Thrusts Hypocrisy Back Into Limelight

     About a year ago, Robbie Rogers, an American soccer player, told the world he was gay. He promptly retired from professional soccer only to be lured back into the game with an offer from the LA Galaxy. At the time, there were countless articles written in support of him. He is a decent player, won an MLS Cup Championship, is capped for the USMNT and played in England, but I wonder, after watching several LA matches last year, if he would have been playing for a high profile team like LA if he has remained silent.

     It really struck me while watching an LA vs San Jose match, where Rogers didn't have a particularly good match, yet the commentators could say nothing but glowing things about Rogers. It nearly met the hysteria of the first few matches Beckham played for LA. The commentators were from San Jose. Granted, San Jose's commentary team is easily the worst in the league, still, the only explanation for their gushing commentary every time Roger's touched the ball, typically only reserved for there own players. can only be explained by the fact he is gay. This is no reflection on Roger's, mind you. This is about everyone else. This is about the media, the fans, the league.

     More recently, Michael Sam, a Missouri football player, told the world he was gay. The reaction was the same. "Proud" and "applaud" were words written repeatedly about Sam. Two interesting things happened with Sam. Immediately, people began to suggest if Sam doesn't get picked in the upcoming NFL draft, it is because of homophobia. This nearly guarantees he gets picked in the draft, regardless of merit. Additionally, because of a lack of negative backlash against Sam, the proponents of homosexuality in the media became angry that no one was speaking out against him. Quite strange this was. Stranger yet was the reason they posited for the silence; cowardice. they were ready with their typical defense of homosexuality with the "bigots" rant but when that didn't materialize in Sam's case, for whatever reason, they had to devise a new attack; 'cowards'.

     Then, perhaps the oddest event to date, Ellen Page, a Canadian actress, told the world she was gay. The requisite praise showered down from the complicit media outlets, but then something different happened. Stories began appearing questioning just how brave it really was for her to reveal it. One news site even went so far as to ask why this is even news any more. When I first read that, I thought maybe the hypocrisy had got so thick the supporters of homosexuality couldn't even continue to stomach it. In the end, however, that wasn't the case at all. She went on to blame the convenient and ever present straw man, homophobia, for the reason this still had to be a big deal.

      The hypocrisy of all of these events should be as clear as the nose on one's face. But those that are blind cannot see even that far. When, out of one side of their collective mouth, they scream for anyone who opposes homosexuality to shut up, and then out of the other side, shout it from the proverbial rooftops each time anyone of note deems it necessary to reveal to the world who they like having sex with, the irony is suffocating.

     It has become clear that our society will not be happy simply when all who oppose homosexuality shut up. Silence just makes them even more incensed. The reason for their euphoric reactions to every new gay star or starlett has nothing to do with supporting that person as a human being. It has everything to do with smashing it over the heads of all who might disapprove until they either change their minds or are shunned and eventually turned into criminals. The reactions from the faithful in regards to Sam and Page should make this extremely clear. What has been done to our society cannot be undone. It never has been in history.

     So how should true Christians, who understand the truth of homosexuality in relation to sin and God's Holiness, react when these events occur with more and more frequency? For me, the answer to this is more consuming than I can answer in this post. I am going to answer this question by asking another, and delving into it with another post. Let me ask you first, how does a holy person live in an unholy world? Answering this question properly will help immensely in giving Christians a new focus in our everyday lives and will potentially determine the fate of our country.

 See you next time...