Football and Education.
I watched more football this weekend than I normally do. Perhaps it was the rain that finally graced our communities that drove me inside. It seemed that every time I turned my head, that there was an interception. Chaos took over the field for those brief seconds, until both sides figured out what had happened. I wondered briefly if I ought not to watch. Was it coincidence that these turnovers happened every time I tuned in? Superstitions aside, I knew I was not the cause. The teams have the best football players in the world vying to win. When such forces collide, it is inevitable that the unexpected happens. Still, the game settles down, and with different strategies, the teams continue to play the game.
So, how does this play into education?
We have seen some forces colliding over the past several decades. Testing mandates, dropout rates, curriculum standards, union priorities, teacher assessments, pay-for-performance, global competition… Can anyone else name a few? This list is not exhaustive. The question I have is, with all these forces at play, do we have a clear sight of what “winning” means? Further, do we agree on the spirit of the game?
Current jargon suggests that all students should be prepared for “post-secondary success”, “career or college”. Okay. Let’s say that we all agree.
Do we align our strategies and tactics to meet this goal? Are we carrying this through the entire 13+ years that a child is in the public school system? How do we balance the need for academics and practical learning? Do we personalize education through differentiated instruction or pretend to by placing children with varying needs in the same class and expecting a daily miracle from the teacher? Do we provide enough exposure to what is possible outside the classroom to engage the imaginations of our youth? Are the students destined to follow the same path as their parents, failing some critical intervention? What kinds of interventions yield the optimal post-secondary success?
And, how about the spirit of the game? The football crowds were quite different. Some college games were packed!! 68,000 people out hooping and hollering for their team. Other stadiums were more empty than full. Certainly cheering and face-paint are fine ways of displaying enthusiasm. Whereas, taser-ing fans of the other team is not. On the field, the referees drop the yellow flag when there are too many players on the field, too much time in starting the next play, unnecessary roughness (this one makes me smile, really? J), … The coaches can raise their red flag to protest a call and the instant replay gives a chance for technology to assist in assessing the situation.
What is the spirit of the discussion about education? I’m right; you’re wrong? It’s poverty, the unions, centralized administration, the kids, the parents, the teachers, the tests, the ______ (fill in the blank) that is to blame. If we were keeping score, who is winning? What does it take to move the conversation forward?
As the economy has slowed over the past few years, how should we react with respect to education? The recent budget cuts are at best an interception. Some would call it a fumble. The chaos gives rise to the professionals on the field to react and to make the play.
Well, readers, I have a lot of questions about this subject. I’ll leave you with one more consideration. While we can compare education and football, I wonder if the purpose of public education is to provide athletics to our youth. Some coaches make more money and teach fewer classes than other teachers on the same campuses. I think I’ll ponder this at another time…
While you are wondering if the purpose of public education is to provide athletics to our youth, I’m pondering all the life long skills athletics provides and the challenges of making other subjects be as hands on and practical. For example, to really understand the “game” one must actually get in there and play. Listening to a coach tell a player how to shoot a basketball is somewhat helpful, but the real learning comes in the form of actually shooting. So often in classrooms, there is much dissemination of information, but not always as much manipulation and application of information. That would never work on a basketball court. Knowing the rules, understanding the plays, and listening to the coach doesn’t compare to playing the game. Believe me, there are no basketball players asking the coach “Why am I learning this?” They are immediately using the knowledge, so it has real meaning. Additionally, sports are more than an activity in schools. To exist on a team one must learn many skills that are applicable in life. For example, consider teamwork and the value of team. I know that this aspect, as well as other soft skills, is a prime quality businesses and companies are seeking. While the emphasis on athletics has been inflated and in some cases totally out of control in our American culture, the lessons it offers our students has merit.
As a student-athlete myself, I did find tremendous value in sports. There needs to be a balance.
Coaching involves on-the-spot feedback. This blog reminds me of a recent classroom observation of a band teacher, another type of coach. The lesson was quick paced and gave students time to immediately practice. Think of how boring band would be if the teacher was the only one to play and had the students listen and take notes. Within 45 minutes, this band teacher covered a lot of ground. He was able to give each child individual feedback on the spot, listen to them fix it, praise them or provide additional pointers. For first year band students, the immediate positive feedback can truly make the difference between students who develop a lifelong love of music versus students who drop the course.
Watching UH football (12-0-0 record for the season) on t.v. today and how they are struggling to put early points on the board against Southern Mississippi has brought up several ideas to ponder on this blog: football compared to education.
In football as well as education the goal is winning and producing results! Winning in football means that you will bring notoriety to your alma mater, increased funding to the university, improvements in recruting (to a great extent, the better your stats, the more choices you will have to pick from as a head coach for the players that you allow to play for your team), and the opportunity to challenge the most successful teams in the country.
Winning in public education will also bring your campus notoriety and increase the number of recruits (new students/families) that attend your campus. A few distinct differences are that success means less funding to your campus (because funds are allocated based on the extent of your needs, so less needs = less funds and this is true for our district as a whole as well as by campus in our district) – which is inverse to the football model of funding. In public education, everyone has the opportunity to attend a school based on where they live – not based on recruiting the most talented players like the football model. As a campus receives an improved rating, more parents will want that type of environment for their children. Parents often make decisions on what is best for their child based on the campus rating, and we often enroll students that have not been successful elsewhere.
In football as well as education, the leader makes the difference. In fact, we often look towards some of the best college football coaches in the country to learn from their methods for motivating and inspiring excellence. We know that an inspirational leader that understands people can take any campus further than a leader that doesn’t have that skillset. Also like football, when the team doesn’t perform, the coach is held responsible. The same is true for the educational leader on the campus, who has to negotiate many things at once when making decisions that impact children and staff. Additionally, just like football, the educational staff must have a unified vision with a multitude of strategies/tools to problem-solve and redirect energy when things are not synergizing for the collective good that produces results.
As Kim notes above, athletes have to “get in there and play.” Team and individual development happens in a real-time context where feedback is immediate between the coach and the football players. In education, there is a lag-time between teacher development (often done in the summer, after school, or on weekends) and implementation of new learning that will ultimately support students. As a leadership team at my school, we are constantly reviewing this approach and trying to give just-in-time staff development as close to the context where application will happen as possible to emulate the coaching model present in football. We want our teachers to be actively engaged in staff development, so they can actively engage our students in life-long learning processes. Until we can strike a better balance between the timely delivery of the information, the context of the delivery used, and the opportunity for trial and reflection, we will not effectively emulate the coaching model used in football by the most successful teams.
Through the Teachsape mega-monitoring model, the administrators are in the classroom more frequently (25 walkthroughs/week per administrator), so the opportunities to provide timely feedback/”coaching” to teachers about instructional delivery has improved. We often pair this with very specific written feedback re: implementation of new learning and suggestions for minor changes to reflect upon, so the feedback we give is done in the context where implementation occurs – in the classroom.
I am not a big football fan, but I am a huge fan of athletic coaches. They do an amazing job of motivating and bringing out the best in their athletes. They have the seemingly unique ability to deliver feedback using a no-nonsense style that produces results.
Principals can learn a lot from coaches.