Sports

A Healthy Education Puts Literacy First

For all the quibbling done about teaching more relevant skills (STEM is the go-to for this rhetoric) and better preparing students for productive careers and to compete on a global scale, America’s schools have done a disservice to the kinds of knowledge and skills whose value is unconditional, insulated from technological disruption, and intrinsic to success in all areas.

We talk about education as being critical to our economy, from filling the jobs of the future, supporting innovation, and even helping workers to pivot in their careers to keep up with change and keep the country competitive. Well, education is also important to the health of our country, and healthcare happens to be one of the biggest single drains on our national economy, in terms of both productivity and absolute cost.

If we are going to look to education for jobs, skills, and economic strength, it stands to reason that we’d also look to education for tackling the health challenges in our country as well.

Health literacy

One of the best predictors of academic success, is whether a student is encouraged to read–or, better yet, read to as a child–by his or her parents outside of school. Basically, this amounts to whether parents support literacy.  In a sense, then, literacy can become cyclical: parents of active readers are, or become, active readers themselves; children of active readers are more likely to become active readers themselves, and to, in turn, encourage reading in their own children.

But basic literacy is no longer limited to reading and writing. Depending on who you talk to, everything from digital literacy to basic coding should be treated as equally essential–usually because of the economic impact such fundamental skills can make over time.

Health literacy needs a similar imperative, because as it turns out, health literacy correlates strongly with better health behaviors, more effective health treatment (when you understand your doctor’s orders, you are both more able and more likely to comply). Health, of course, underpins success elsewhere in life: careers, relationships, creativity, academics–all of the things, in short, we hope to gain from education.

Bad Medicine

Diet is but one component of this, but it is perhaps the easiest to blend practice with theory, considering the need for students to eat at least one meal over the course of their primary school day.

Hospitals and schools face a similar challenge: feeding students (or patients) well, and teaching them to feed themselves better at the same time. The cafeteria model that has gained such widespread adoption over the last century produces some serious externalities that, long-term, undermine any claims about the efficiency of such food service systems. Namely, prioritizing volume over value, and thereby reinforcing negative habits and attitudes about food: convenience first, fried and packaged rather than fresh, salt and sugar rather than balanced.

Putting health literacy on the menu, as well as in the classroom (or the examination room, where hospitals are concerned) can help undo these damaging trends. More than that, though, health literacy balances the role of authority–like doctors and nurses–with the role of individuals (take care of yourself proactively, rather than looking to get fixed reactively; don’t wait for government restrictions to improve your grocery list). Literacy itself teaches personal accountability: you learn to read and write for yourself, and to think and interpret critically.

Health literacy promises something similar, applied to the life skills of self-care and taking responsibility for each individual’s role in supporting population health.

Getting Physical

Balance is missing from our population, as well as from our schools. P.E. classes, like lunchrooms, could stand to reintegrate some balance to help repair our culture starting with the youth.

In other academic models, gamification is the latest buzzword to gain traction with its premise, essentially, of making learning engaging and fun. Physical education–training students to exercise, be active, and care for their bodies–seems a lot like the original model of gamification, but we’ve let the games overwhelm the lessons, and the competition dissolve the core value. We have a cultural problem when it comes to staying active.

Sports anchored to schools have more than their share of problems, and the association has grown beyond unhealthy. It is entirely possible that the professionalization of sports at all ages, and the pressure on children to specialize athletically at younger and younger ages, is partially responsible for the failure of physical education programs in the U.S. The intensity of the competition, and the emphasis on talent and relative skill over the intrinsic value of participation may well put kids off of sports, and by extension, exercise. It encourages kids of all ages to take unnecessary risks, “play through the pain” and even take drugs to gain a competitive edge.

Adopting the “everybody gets a trophy” approach is not helping. Physical fitness–and physical education–are the counterparts to the sort of health literacy training that can take place in the cafeteria. Again, the model of parents reading at home may be instructive. When participation in exercise of any form is reflected at home and at school, the focus can return to where it belongs: personal health and wellness.

Reading together promotes learning as well as fostering community. So, too, does eating together. There is no reason why athletics cannot provide a similar model for behavior as an individual as well as a group member.

 

Literacy underpins communication and helps us advance as individuals and collectively. Health literacy can do the same for our collective health and cultural approach to wellness by means of what we eat and how we care for ourselves.

Cut Sports, Advance Academics

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

A guest post by Edgar Wilson

We need to get sports out of schools.

As an extra-curricular, sports should already be distinct from academics, but that hasn’t remotely stopped athletic programs from asserting dominance in and out of the classroom. The problem is most pronounced in tertiary education, where university budgets—and, by extension, student fees and tuition—are being coopted to support legacy athletic programs, most notably football.

Football programs—at least in the current conception—are a losing investment for most schools. Maintaining a diversity of athletic options is expensive, and is clearly not supported by the broadcast and viewership patterns of American sports fans. In the US, we want our football, and we want our basketball, and we want it for free.

These same consumer forces upsetting other pillars of the entertainment industry—music, movies, television—are beginning to cripple cable: streaming services.

Disney has been making headlines since the release of its new Star Wars sequel not only because of the record-breaking box office numbers the film is generating, but because the company is still managing to bleed money due to decreasing cable subscriptions, a pattern that undermines the value of its ESPN channels, and the associated advertising revenues.

Broadcasting college sports just can’t guarantee the same returns that made it such a popular money-maker in the past.

Beyond the backwards financial machinations of college sports, there is the fact that, overwhelmingly, K-12 sports are falling into a pay-to-play format that is fundamentally exclusionary. What merit can a sports program have as an avenue for poor or at-risk students to access college, if the cost of participation already bars them from playing in high school?

Yet at the collegiate level, sports teams have become the tent pole holding up the entire institution:

  • Rather than marketing the university based on academics, professional outcomes, research opportunities or expert faculty, their record of athletic accomplishment gets the most publicity
  • Individual payouts are larger (yet fewer) for athletic scholarships, creating a competitive, high-stakes sports culture that trickles down through secondary and even primary school programs
  • Universities must compete in terms of funding, event games, and spectacle in addition to competing on the field of play

In short, the whole mission and focus of universities pivots to accommodate athletics with increasing urgency.

Compromise abounds—even the United States Naval Academy, which graduates over a thousand students with Bachelor of Science degrees while simultaneously training them as officers for the U.S. Navy every year, has augmented its historically high standards to allow its student athletes to compete at the same level as schools lacking its demanding duel mission. Ditto for West Point.

Beyond lowering the bar for education itself, the troubling school-sports marriage is proving hazardous to the health of student athletes—at every level and age cohort.

The medical data coming out on the punishing long-term effects of athletic injuries, overexertion, and cumulative trauma from youth sports is damning. Whether or not it pays off in the form of discounted tuition or admission to a prestigious school, young jocks in full contact sports can more or less count on legacy injuries dogging them for life.

Outside the high-visibility, high-risk arena of football, research indicates that a hyper-competitive culture that prioritizes specialization leaves any youth athletes at risk of chronic injury. It isn’t that the sports themselves are bad, just that the culture surrounding them has made them so. Technophiles look to science to solve the problem of inherently violent contact sports, only to discover that the culture—not the equipment—is what needs to change to save lives.

The compromise of academics to accommodate athletes is troubling. The conflict of interest for universities, students, the public, and the myriad companies and industries that profit of collegiate sports is fundamentally undermining the purpose and potential of American higher education.

Institutions of learning should support student missions of learning—not athletics.

____

Edgar Wilson is an Oregon native with a passion for cooking, trivia, and politics. He studied conflict resolution and international relations and has worked in industries ranging from international marketing to broadcast journalism. He is currently working as an independent analytical consultant. He can be reached via email here or on Twitter @EdgarTwilson.

When coaches are bullies: What should students do?

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

A guest post by Jennifer Fraser

High-level coaches like John O’Sullivan are concerned about the stark fact that seven out of ten kids quit sports at the age of thirteen. O’Sullivan has written best-selling books on how we must “change the game” so that kids don’t quit sports, but instead become athletes for life. In 2012, he became the founder and CEO of Changing the Game Project such is his passionate belief that we can learn a different and better way to treat young athletes. O’Sullivan focuses mainly on parents, whereas I want to focus on coaches.

Our son, along with five others, quit playing basketball in his final year of high school. He had been dedicated to the game since grade four and had planned to try out for college teams. He quit because he was given the tragic choice for a seventeen year old: play for bullying coaches or quit the game you love. The bullying was the same you might find on a playground or in a locker-lined hallway: homophobic slurs, swearing, insults, ignoring, yelling, grabbing, detaining. It’s just that it wasn’t kids doing it: the bullying was being done by teachers while supposedly “coaching” basketball.

Boys ranging from grade ten to first year university reported their treatment to the Headmaster, but the conduct was brushed under the rug as “old style coaching”; the boys who reported were singled out as problematic because they had “unhappy experiences” and a vague promise was given that the coaches would “tone it down.” Funnily enough, that’s not what the police said. Their assessment was that there was a “definite pattern in the complaints, all pointing to verbal and emotional abuse.” However, the police could not intervene because emotional abuse is not in the criminal code. So, the boys were given the choice by the Headmaster: submit to the abuse or quit the team.

After witnessing what really happens when kids speak up, I started wondering how many other kids are treated this way? We know students find it extremely difficult to report on peer bullying let alone teacher bullying. We know seventy percent of athletes are quitting their sport at thirteen. We keep going on and on about how vital coaches are in kids’ lives; they’re more important than almost anyone. Coaches, we are told, are key role models and ‘sports teaches character.’ But does it in its present form? Seventy percent of kids are losing these crucial lessons and the thirty percent that remain might be learning lessons in bullying and narcissism on some teams. According to the Workplace Bullying Institute and many others, our workplaces are overrun with bullies. Is it possible they learn the advantages to bullying while on the court or the field?

Coaches who bully appear to have the ability to cover up what they do. We want to think of abusers as monsters, instantly identifiable, but that’s naïve. Abusers are far more often the most charming, sociable, and influential. They exude goodness publicly which appears to effectively cover up what they do behind the scenes. They seem to have a dual character presentation that I have discussed previously as a Jekyll and Hyde persona (1). Notably, this dual personality type or charismatic bully appears to be especially attracted to competitive sports because of the win-lose dynamic. Dr. Burgo explains,

It helps to view the bully as a kind of competitor on the social playing field, one who strives not only to win but to triumph over the social losers and destroy their sense of self. As in competitive sport, where winners and losers exist in a binary relation to one another, the bully is yoked in identity to his victims. To a significant degree, his self-image depends upon having those losers to persecute: I am a winner because you are a loser.”

Dr. Burgo describes this competitive technique used by bullies and often by those who support them:

All bullies are narcissists, with an inflated sense of self-importance and a marked lack of empathy for their victims’ suffering, while many narcissists turn out to be powerful bullies. In defending his winner-status against detractors, for example, Lance Armstrong made extensive use of the legal system and his access to media in order to bully and intimidate anyone who challenged him. In particular, he tried to destroy their reputations. (2)

What’s so interesting is that this sport dynamic translates so readily into the work world and the cost is staggering. In a 2008 article on workplace bullying, Thomas Hoffman, quotes from Jean Ritala’s book, Narcissism in the Workplace where she compiles a list of behaviors exhibited by bullies at work.

There were at least fourteen students who came forward at my son’s school to say that they were being bullied by their teachers under the auspices of “coaching” and they wanted it to stop. Notably, the teacher-coaches involved exhibited most, if not all the behaviors used to describe bullies in the workplace. According to Jean Ritala, bullies or narcissists often display the following traits at work:

  • Arrogant and self-centered, they expect special treatment and privileges.
  • They can be charismatic, articulate and funny.
  • They are likely to disrespect boundaries and the privacy of others.
  • They can be patronizing and critical of others but unwilling or unable to accept criticism or disagreement.
  • Likely to be anxiety-stricken or paranoid, they may exhibit violent, rage-like reactions when they can’t control a situation or their behaviors have been exposed.
  • They are apt to set others up for failure or pit co-workers against one another.
  • They can be cruel and abusive to some co-workers, often targeting one person at a time until he quits.
  • They may need an ongoing “narcissist supply” of people who they can easily manipulate and who will do whatever they suggest – including targeting a co-worker – without question.
  • They are often charming and innocent in front of managers. (3)

This description fits so closely with what teenagers articulated about how their coaches conducted themselves at my son’s school. They found it hard to explain how charming the coaches could be which made no sense when put beside their out of control rages. They struggled to understand why they were penalized while other players were celebrated for identical conduct. They knew there was a history of kids quitting, but didn’t know how to understand it. They knew they were in pain, but lacked sophisticated reporting skills or insight to express it.

If adults in the workplace struggle to identify and shutdown bullying, imagine how remarkably difficult it is for teens. They have been taught all their school years that the teacher knows best and the teacher is a trusted figure to whom they can turn when bullying happens. Then suddenly they are in a situation where the teacher seems to be the bully, but that doesn’t make sense so they can’t even think of how to explain it.

Teachers and coaches have a sacred trust. They have enormous influence over young people. They need to get educated on just how serious the damage of emotional abuse is to the adolescent brain and psyche and they need to ensure it doesn’t happen ever on their watch. If they can’t control themselves, they need to seek help. Considering they too have probably been trained in a bullying dynamic, they need healing. Passing on the hurt is not the way to train young people to move from the court to the workforce.

References

  1. https://jenmfraser.wordpress.com/2015/08/06/recognizing-the-abusive-coach-as-jekyll-and-hyde/
  2. Joseph Burgo, “All Bullies are Narcissists: Stories of Bullying and Hazing in the News Break Down to Narcissism and Insecurity,” The Atlantic, November 2013: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/all-bullies-are-narcissists/281407/
  3. Thomas Hoffman, “Narcissists at work: How to deal with arrogant, controlling, manipulative      bullies,” Computer World, June 2008: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2535227/it-management/narcissists-at-work–how-to-deal-with-arrogant–controlling–manipulative-bullies.html

___________

Jennifer Fraser has a PhD in Comparative Literature from the University of Toronto and is a published writer. She is presently teaching creative writing and International Bacclaureate literature classes at an independent school in British Columbia.