By Laura Smith
Laura Smith is an Assistant Editor at Athletic Management. She can be reached at: ls@MomentumMedia.com.
Athletic Management, 18.6, October/November 2006, http://www.momentummedia.com/articles/am/am1806/unevenground.htm
It’s five minutes to game time, and the locker room atmosphere is electric. Two evenly matched high school teams are ready to give it all they’ve got. In the contest that follows, questions will be answered: Who has more grit? Who has dug deeper in the weightroom? Who came better prepared? Life lessons, leaving it all on the court, winning some, losing some, emerging stronger from the fray. It’s what high school sports are all about.
Across town, another game is about to begin, but in these locker rooms, there’s a different feel in the air. One team is a powerhouse from a growing suburb, the other is from an inner city school with few resources, and the outcome isn’t seriously in question. The visiting players sit quietly as their coach attempts a pep talk. The home team, their victory all but assured, can’t get very pumped up for the contest either. Both squads wait for it to be over.
Meaningful competition is the heart of the high school sports experience. But more and more often, it appears to be missing in some areas of the country, especially where economic factors come into play. And when one school doesn’t belong in the same arena as its league rival, the athletic experience can quickly turn sour for everyone.
In response, athletic administrators are starting to look more closely into problems of competitive equity and how to solve them. At the state level, innovative rules changes are being considered. And at the local level, individual schools are coming up with new ideas on how to turn struggling programs around.
IS EQUITY IMPORTANT?
Competitive equity can be difficult to define, but most administrators agree that it doesn’t mean even numbers of state titles or .500 records every year. “Competitive equity means having a reasonable chance against your opponent,” says Marty Hickman, Executive Director of the Illinois High School Association (IHSA). “It means you might get beat this year, but next year, you might be the stronger team.”
“Competitive equity doesn’t mean we’re not going to lose,” agrees Curt Ervine, Supervisor of Athletics for Indianapolis Public Schools. “But it does mean that we aren’t going to consistently lose 90 to 2.”
“Teams have competitive equity when they both know they have a reasonable chance of succeeding,” says Jay Coakley, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Colorado and the author of Sports in Society: Issues and Controversies. “Competitive equity is missing when one team consistently knows that, because of factors beyond its control, it has no real chance of winning. Unfortunately, that situation is happening more and more.”
How much does competitive equity matter? Mike Alberghini, Athletic Director at Grant High School in Sacramento, Calif., believes it matters a lot. The football team at his large, urban high school is a powerhouse, but the other sport programs struggle to compete with their suburban neighbors, and wins are rare. The situation has taken a toll on both morale and participation. “Kids and coaches are discouraged,” Alberghini says. “It’s gotten harder to convince kids to come out, and that means programs have become even less successful. It’s a bad cycle.”
According to Coakley, there is a fundamental reason why competitive inequities undermine athletics. “Sports are fun because they inspire you to be your best,” he says. “When you lack competitive equity, you destroy the entire basis for that motivation. Kids on the losing side are learning that sports are not fun, and kids on the winning side are learning that sports are about dominating people. Those are not the lessons we want them to take home.”
“Competitive equity absolutely matters,” agrees Richard Graey, Superintendent of the Mattole Unified School District in Petrolia, Calif., and Chair of California’s North Coast Section (NCS) Alignment and Classification Committee. “When kids know they have a fair chance, their spirit is alive. Teams without a chance are like balloons with the air taken out of them. Putting kids in situations with built-in inequities goes against everything sports is about.”
POPULATION vs. INCOME
Much of the discussion about competitive equity has historically centered on one of the easiest factors to understand and identify: public versus private schools. Because most private schools draw athletes from an unlimited area, several states have seen the need for a system to put their public and private members on more even ground.
A common, although controversial, approach is to place a multiplier on private schools’ enrollment, moving them up to a higher class of competition. In Illinois, Hickman has seen firsthand one of the most recent debates over multipliers. This spring, IHSA member schools approved a 1.65 multiplier on all non-boundaried schools, public and private, despite a legal challenge mounted by private schools. By applying the multiplier to both public and private non-boundaried schools, the IHSA acknowledged that a growing number of public charter schools and schools with open enrollment are also operating without attendance zones.
However, there is a growing sentiment that public-private inequities are only part of the story. “Competitive equity can’t be fixed by simply moving private schools up a level,” says Blake Ress, Commissioner of the Indiana High School Athletic Association, whose board of directors recently voted down a proposal for a 1.5 multiplier on private schools. “The inequities in high school sports today are almost entirely a matter of socioeconomics. It’s become an issue of the haves and the have-nots.”
At Fort Wayne (Ind.) Southside High School, an inner city school where nearly 80 percent of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch, Athletic Director Jerry Amstutz is experiencing the widening gap firsthand. In the same county, a suburban high school has a free and reduced lunch population hovering around five percent. The distance separating the two schools is only a few miles, says Amstutz, but they’re in two different worlds when it comes to sports. “In a lot of sports, we simply can’t compete with them,” he says.
The economic divide, according to Amstutz, is not as much about disparities in the size of athletic department budgets as it is about families with vastly different resources. “We are financially stable as a department—we are able to buy balls and uniforms, pay coaches, and keep facilities running,” he says. “What we can’t compete with are the clubs, camps, equipment, and individual instruction suburban kids get outside of school.
“Volleyball is a good example,” Amstutz continues. “To make the teams at some of our neighboring suburban schools, kids are almost forced to play club in the off-season. In addition to that, many of the kids are getting private lessons and conditioning sessions. We’ve had two kids in the past two years who have played club volleyball. It’s not hard to imagine what happens when we compete against them. It’s impossible to say the inequities are all about public-private when there is a public school right in our own county that we can’t compete with.”
Southside’s situation sounds all too familiar to Grant High’s Alberghini. For him, the “other world” of high school sports is aptly represented by Granite Bay High School, a suburban school not far from Grant but with vastly different resources. “When we play Granite Bay in sports like soccer, volleyball, baseball, and softball, there is no competitive equity,” Alberghini says. “Their parents have the finances to put $1,000 into their kid playing outside of school. In inner city schools, that’s just not happening. The families don’t have the money, so the kids don’t end up getting the background that would put them on an equal playing field. It’s driven by economics, and it is not a good situation for kids.”
A NEW APPROACH
To address economic inequities, some high school administrators are beginning to advocate for a totally new kind of multiplier. This fall, the Minnesota High School League (MHSL) became the first state association to implement a system for using schools’ socioeconomic profiles as a factor in assigning classifications. Based on a new formula, schools with high percentages of students participating in free or reduced lunch programs may find they are able to move down a class.
According to MHSL Executive Director Dave Stead, the state association board of directors unanimously approved the new formula after carefully analyzing its membership. Since private schools make up 23 percent of the MHSL’s membership and have won 20 percent of its state titles over the past five years, it concluded that public-private inequities were not the main problem.
Next, the MHSL compared the participation rates of students who receive free or reduced lunch with those who do not, and found a staggering disparity. Sixty-five percent of those not receiving free or reduced lunch were participating, compared to just 25 percent of those receiving the aid. Stead believes the gap reveals one of the biggest sources of inequity: Schools with higher numbers of students from low-income families simply have fewer athletes from which to draw.
“There is a 40-point differential in the participation rate, so starting this fall, we will take schools’ free and reduced lunch number, multiply it by 40 percent, and subtract that number from their enrollment,” Stead explains. “For example, take a school of 1,000 that has 200 kids on free or reduced lunch. We’ll multiply the 200 by 40 percent to get 80. We’ll subtract that from 1,000, and for classification purposes, their enrollment will be 920. And if that doesn’t get them into a lower classification, we have an appeals process whereby a school can tell us what specific economic hardships are going on in their community, and our board of directors will have the option to move them down.”
A similar plan was discussed in Indiana this spring, under a proposal submitted to the IHSAA by Amstutz and Fort Wayne Southside Principal Thomas Smith. The proposal failed, but it has generated discussion, and Amstutz hopes a similar system will eventually become a reality.
Amstutz’s proposal would have split Indiana schools into five groups based on free and reduced lunch participation percentages. The first 20 percent, with the lowest free and reduced percentage, would have had its enrollment multiplied by 1.3. The second 20 percent would have had a multiplier of 1.15, and the middle 20 percent would have had no multiplier. The next 20 percent would have been multiplied by .85, and the schools with the highest number of free and reduced lunch students would have been multiplied by .70. Since private schools usually have very low numbers of students qualifying for free and reduced lunch, Amstutz believes his multiplier would have addressed boundaried versus non-boundaried inequities at the same time it dealt with socioeconomic disparities.
“As a school of 1,500 students with 77 percent receiving free and reduced lunch, that would have taken us down to 1,050,” Amstutz says. “I feel that is a fair place to put our sports teams.”
In retrospect, Amstutz acknowledges that his formula was complex, and he’s working to simplify it. “I’m planning to work through our state athletic directors’ association to refine the plan, and I hope something comes of it down the road,” he says.
While moving schools to different classifications based on their economic profiles may be a solution, according to Coakley, it also raises some key questions. “We have to ask whether the assumptions these plans are based on are assumptions we want to live with,” he says. “These systems accept the fact that poorer schools are less competitive, and that kids who qualify for free or reduced lunch are less likely to participate. Instead of implementing systems to make that okay, I hope as time goes on we can become more creative in fixing the fundamental problems. We need systems that encourage more kids to participate and encourage wealthy schools to share their resources.”
Stead agrees, but for now, he says his state’s new system is needed. “As the situation stands, we need a plan in place that gets our disadvantaged schools into a competitive situation that’s appropriate,” he says. (For more on how the MHSL is working to remove economic barriers to participation, see “Lobbying Legislators,” below.)
ONE SCHOOL’S SOLUTION
Administrators at the Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) know a thing or two about competitive equity. Once a school system of athletic powerhouses, they’ve watched many of their students—the ones with parents who can spring for a new bat or a summer sports camp—make a steady exodus for the suburbs, taking with them much of the district’s athletic success.
But rather than wait for a statewide solution, IPS has come up with a plan to rebuild its athletic program from the ground up. The rationale: If families aren’t in a position to provide youth leagues, training, and off-season opportunities for their children, IPS will.
According to IPS Supervisor of Athletics Curt Ervine, loss of feeder programs is one of the biggest reasons the IPS athletic tradition disappeared. “We still have just as many talented athletes as we ever did, but many of our kids don’t play a sport until they get to middle school or even high school,” Ervine says. “They’re still learning the fundamentals while we’re putting them up against kids who have played year-round since elementary school. It’s a horrible inequity.”
Fixing the broken feeder system is the first step of a plan hatched by Ervine and IPS Superintendent Eugene White. The plan will create strong youth programs in a wide variety of sports at the district’s elementary and middle schools, with high school coaches responsible for oversight. Elementary seasons will be placed before or after high school seasons, and high school coaches will work with their elementary and middle school counterparts, ensuring that fundamentals and philosophy are consistent throughout the district.
A more controversial aspect of the plan involves eliminating teams at some high schools. Starting in 2008-09, all IPS high school teams that fail to attract a minimum number of participants will begin to lose coaching positions. Unless their numbers increase, they will eventually be dropped. In volleyball, for example, a school will need 18 players on its roster in 2008-09 to avoid cuts. In boys’ and girls’ soccer, the minimum is 24 players. The concept, in part, is to concentrate resources instead of fielding teams at every high school if the interest is not there.
Although people have balked at the idea of cutting teams, Ervine says the measure is meant to be a carrot, not a stick. “This is a new idea, and not everyone is used to it,” he says. “We’re hoping it will encourage coaches and athletic directors at our high schools to go to the middle schools that feed into them and work with kids to build interest in their sport.”
The new athletic plan carries a big price tag, which will be specifically determined over the next year. However, Ervine and White succeeded in convincing the district’s board of governors that having sports teams that can compete is worth the money. Following months of discussion, the board voted unanimously in September to approve the plan. “In our pitch, we stressed to the board that it’s bordering on a crime to keep putting our kids out on the field knowing they don’t have the fundamental skills to succeed,” Ervine says. “It will take a while to see the results, but with this new approach, we believe we are on the road to success.”
STEPS FOR ADMINISTRATORS
While Indianapolis’s solution may be too progressive for many school districts, there are some simpler steps administrators can take to boost competitive equity in their programs. The first may be to rethink your league affiliation.
Early in his career, when he was a high school principal, Hickman changed his school’s conference to boost competitiveness. “We were in a conference that was over our heads,” he says. “The schools were close to us geographically, but we were not a competitive match. Over time, our kids had been beaten down from too many losses.
“When I initiated a move to a new conference, some members of our school board opposed it, thinking we should stay and try to compete,” Hickman continues. “But once we moved, there was a much better balance of wins and losses and the entire program benefited.”
In working on realignment issues for California’s North Coast Section, Graey has also become a firm believer in choosing a league based on competitiveness. “If losses are piling up and you think you may be in the wrong place, take some time to assess the overall health of your program,” he advises. “Look at how many kids are coming out for teams and how many are staying on teams. If it’s becoming harder to get kids to play, competitive inequity may be damaging your program, and it may be time to move.”
Since active parents can make a big difference for struggling athletic programs, Ervine suggests thinking about how to get them invested. For example, he uses a computer-automated phone system to leave parents messages about game results, upcoming events, and other athletics news. “Schedule games as close to where parents live or work as you can and at times when they can attend,” he adds. “Communicate with them as often as you can, encouraging them to watch practice, come to games, and support their child.”
Graey suggests offering low- or no-cost camps and clinics that provide the same exposure and skill development wealthier kids get playing club sports. “We can’t afford to offer it for free, but we attempt to keep the cost of summer play as low as possible,” he says. “I calculate the cost to us, and that’s all we charge. If kids can’t afford it, we still won’t turn them away.”
A final idea is to play up the aspects of athletics that do not involve winning, and remember that the grass is not always greener on the other side. “In the pursuit of competitive equity, it’s important to remember that keeping up with the Joneses is not always a good thing,” says Graey. “Sport specialization and year-round competition are rewarded on the scoreboard, but can wear kids out. I’m seeing 16-year-olds with injuries they shouldn’t have until they’re 50. There’s been a loss of perspective in high school sports and it’s important to not buy into it.”
Amstutz agrees. “We’re trying to emphasize the value of participation, teamwork, and setting and achieving goals,” he says. “I tell my coaches, ‘We may not win a lot of games, and that’s okay. My expectation is for you to take your team from point A to point B during the season and give the athletes an overall good experience.’
“Competitive inequity exists and it’s a problem worth solving,” Amstutz adds. “But as long as we are focused on treating kids right, building relationships, and helping them succeed in their lives, that’s what will matter in the long run.”
Sidebar: LOBBYING LEGISLATORS
In Minnesota, officials at the state high school association have identified a major barrier to competitive equity: Schools with high numbers of students participating in free or reduced lunch programs tend to have dramatically lower sports participation rates than schools with fewer students on free or reduced lunch. One of the reasons, according to Minnesota High School League (MHSL) Executive Director Dave Stead, is that low-income families often cannot afford the high pay-to-play fees that most Minnesota schools must charge to make ends meet.
To fix the problem, the MHSL has begun lobbying Minnesota lawmakers to enact a landmark change to the way sports are funded. Under a proposal that has yet to become an official bill, the MHSL is asking legislators to allow school systems to levy a tax on homeowners to support athletics and activities—without getting approval from voters. In exchange, schools would agree to eliminate pay-to-play fees.
“Presently, parents with kids in sports are shouldering the majority of the cost of sports, but we firmly believe having programs for kids to participate in benefits the entire community,” Stead says. “If schools could simply levy an activities tax, all members of the community would be contributing according to their ability, pay-to-play fees would disappear, and low-income students would have equal access to athletics.”
The MHSL has begun discussions with lawmakers and will continue the push in January when the next legislative session begins. Meanwhile, the state association is gathering allies for the proposal among principals, superintendents, and school boards. “We think this idea has a lot of promise,” Stead says. “It’s something we’re going to push very hard for.”
Sidebar: THE WINNER’S ROLE
In the context of competitive equity, what are the responsibilities of an administrator at a powerhouse school whose teams consistently come out on top? One important role involves safeguarding against blowouts.
At New Trier High School in Illinois, Athletic Director James Bloch oversees a program with more state championships to its name than any other school in the state. It’s not uncommon for New Trier to face opponents that don’t have its athletic strength, and in those situations, Bloch makes sure his athletes and coaches act with integrity.
To start, Bloch pays careful attention to scheduling to avoid gross mismatches. Next, he tells his coaches that if they do find themselves in a badly lopsided contest, running up the score is not an option. “They are expected to quickly get their starters out and give the playing time to kids who do not usually get to play,” he says. “On the rare occasions when they know ahead of time that the contest will be lopsided, they will not start or play their best kids at all.”
However, under no circumstances does Bloch tell coaches to have athletes try not to score or to play less than their best. “I believe that strategy is inappropriate and would be even more insulting to our opponents,” he says.
“Athletic directors have a responsibility to provide a moral compass that ensures their teams do not demean or whitewash their opponents,” Bloch continues. “Losing isn’t inherently bad, because much of what we learn from athletics is from the struggle. But when scores are woefully lopsided and the big guy is purposely beating up on the little guy, there is not a lot of learning that goes on for either team. As administrators, we are the gatekeepers, and we have to step in and make sure our coaches are treating athletics like the educational experience it is supposed to be.”