McFeely

[Hammersmith]

There's a similarly titled thread in Smack, but I'm hoping for less smack and more discussion on the following, so I felt it deserved to be in the Commons.

First, you might hate the guy, but this blog post was pretty funny:
Men should be required to take small-engine repair classes (http://www.areavoices.com/mcfeely/?blog=38010)

But here's the meat of my question to all of you:
Encourage kids to play all sports (http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=224776&section=Columnists&columnist=Mike McFeely)

The quick version of his column is that high school kids shouldn't specialize and should play as many sports as possible and any coach that disagrees is selfish and doesn't have the kid's best interests at heart. Well, I disagree. I think that middle school(7th-9th) is the place to generalize and high school(10th-12th) should be where kids pick one to three activities* and focus on them. I believe that pushing(allowing?) kids to participate in three or four sports and a couple other activities only teaches kids to be mediocre at everything. One of the best things we can teach a kid in high school is how to excel at something. It might be music, science, football, track, marksmanship, or anything else in the school or out of it you can think of, but to attain a level of excellence requires time that isn't available if a kid is stretched too thin.

I teach an activity, so this is something I've thought about often(obviously). At the high school level, I feel it's my responsibility to help a student find something they have the talent for, even if it means they leave my class. Participating in an activity "just for fun" is something I think is better reserved for the middle school level. In the Upper Plains, I think we have a tendency toward the opposite view(McFeely's) because kids from most small schools must generalize or there wouldn't be enough participants for any activity. Due to this, I think we've come to feel this is the best method of education because to acknowledge the truth(or at least my opinion) would mean that we are encouraging our kids to do something that is not in their best interests. No one wants to do that. (The last few sentences are pretty ugly; I hope you get what I'm trying to say.)

I know that several posters here are teachers, coaches, or participate in youth activities in some way. Many more of you are parents with children who have been in, are in, or will be in high school activities someday. I'm interested in what you think and why.


*1 athletic, 1 non-athletic, and possibly 1 other of either

[CarringtonBison]

There's a similarly titled thread in Smack, but I'm hoping for less smack and more discussion on the following, so I felt it deserved to be in the Commons.

First, you might hate the guy, but this blog post was pretty funny:
Men should be required to take small-engine repair classes (http://www.areavoices.com/mcfeely/?blog=38010)

But here's the meat of my question to all of you:
Encourage kids to play all sports (http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=224776&section=Columnists&columnist=Mike McFeely)

The quick version of his column is that high school kids shouldn't specialize and should play as many sports as possible and any coach that disagrees is selfish and doesn't have the kid's best interests at heart. Well, I disagree. I think that middle school(7th-9th) is the place to generalize and high school(10th-12th) should be where kids pick one to three activities* and focus on them. I believe that pushing(allowing?) kids to participate in three or four sports and a couple other activities only teaches kids to be mediocre at everything. One of the best things we can teach a kid in high school is how to excel at something. It might be music, science, football, track, marksmanship, or anything else in the school or out of it you can think of, but to attain a level of excellence requires time that isn't available if a kid is stretched too thin.

I teach an activity, so this is something I've thought about often(obviously). At the high school level, I feel it's my responsibility to help a student find something they have the talent for, even if it means they leave my class. Participating in an activity "just for fun" is something I think is better reserved for the middle school level. In the Upper Plains, I think we have a tendency toward the opposite view(McFeely's) because kids from most small schools must generalize or there wouldn't be enough participants for any activity. Due to this, I think we've come to feel this is the best method of education because to acknowledge the truth(or at least my opinion) would mean that we are encouraging our kids to do something that is not in their best interests. No one wants to do that. (The last few sentences are pretty ugly; I hope you get what I'm trying to say.)

I know that several posters here are teachers, coaches, or participate in youth activities in some way. Many more of you are parents with children who have been in, are in, or will be in high school activities someday. I'm interested in what you think and why.


*1 athletic, 1 non-athletic, and possibly 1 other of either

I agree that it is nice for high school students to excel at something, but I look at high school sports differently. Yes, it is great to win and as a former athlete who has won state titles, I agree that that feeling sticks with you for a long time. However, I think that high school sports main purpose is to pormote (teach) teamwork, establish lifelong friendships, and learn to live with success AND failure. Also sports (extracurricular activities) should help keep kids busy, as this help to keep them out of trouble.

I am not a big fan of specilization. Put all your effort into one activity year long helps lead to burnout. Your participation in one activity should help in the other (e.g. track for football-speed, wrestling for football-balance, etc.). Most parents push their kids to specialize because they want their child to be the next big league star from ND. Statistically not gonna happen.

just my $0.02

[aces1180]

There's a similarly titled thread in Smack, but I'm hoping for less smack and more discussion on the following, so I felt it deserved to be in the Commons.

First, you might hate the guy, but this blog post was pretty funny:
Men should be required to take small-engine repair classes (http://www.areavoices.com/mcfeely/?blog=38010)

But here's the meat of my question to all of you:
Encourage kids to play all sports (http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=224776&section=Columnists&columnist=Mike McFeely)

The quick version of his column is that high school kids shouldn't specialize and should play as many sports as possible and any coach that disagrees is selfish and doesn't have the kid's best interests at heart. Well, I disagree. I think that middle school(7th-9th) is the place to generalize and high school(10th-12th) should be where kids pick one to three activities* and focus on them. I believe that pushing(allowing?) kids to participate in three or four sports and a couple other activities only teaches kids to be mediocre at everything. One of the best things we can teach a kid in high school is how to excel at something. It might be music, science, football, track, marksmanship, or anything else in the school or out of it you can think of, but to attain a level of excellence requires time that isn't available if a kid is stretched too thin.

I teach an activity, so this is something I've thought about often(obviously). At the high school level, I feel it's my responsibility to help a student find something they have the talent for, even if it means they leave my class. Participating in an activity "just for fun" is something I think is better reserved for the middle school level. In the Upper Plains, I think we have a tendency toward the opposite view(McFeely's) because kids from most small schools must generalize or there wouldn't be enough participants for any activity. Due to this, I think we've come to feel this is the best method of education because to acknowledge the truth(or at least my opinion) would mean that we are encouraging our kids to do something that is not in their best interests. No one wants to do that. (The last few sentences are pretty ugly; I hope you get what I'm trying to say.)

I know that several posters here are teachers, coaches, or participate in youth activities in some way. Many more of you are parents with children who have been in, are in, or will be in high school activities someday. I'm interested in what you think and why.


*1 athletic, 1 non-athletic, and possibly 1 other of either

Now that I am married, my wife and I have have had discussions about what activities our yet-to-be conceived kids will do outside of school.

I'm pretty simple when it comes to sports...I want my son to play football, hockey and baseball. As for my daughter, I would prefer her to play volleyball and softball. If they happen to excel at one, especially when they reach the high school level and it is a possibility that they earn a college scholarship (or get drafted), then I would encourage them to stick with the other sports to stay in shape and have fun.

My wife, on the other hand, wants our kids to be involved with music and/or theater. I think it would be good for them to play an instrument or participate in a play. She is also a big supporter of them playing sports.

Don't get me wrong, I'm never going to push my kid's in a certain direction. I will, however, give them the opportunity to at least try everything they are interested in. That's what my parents did with me. If they don't like something, I won't force them to stick with it. I assume by the time they get to high school, they will know what they like and don't like. If they decide to play basketball or join the band, I would have no problem, as long as they are staying busy.

[mebisonII]

Good question. I don't think there's necessarily a general right answer...it depends on the kid and the opportunities available. On one hand, have you ever heard of a phenom violin player or gymnast who DIDN'T start specializing and focusing very hard at about the age of 3? On the other hand, if you are kind of interested in lots of things, when else are you going to get the opportunity to play in a band, play (sit on the bench) in basketball, and try out the school play?

Personally, my own strategy/wish for my hypothetical kids would probably be something like Hammersmiths. I'd want my kids to at least try a lot of different things, and then by high school be involved in a small enough number of things that they can put the time needed into each of them. My guess would be my kids activities include:

1. music - my wife and I have both played and/or sang, although neither of us are anything above mediocre

2. running/climbing/skiing - my kid's genetics, in terms of size and coordination, will not likely lead him/her to a professional football or basketball court :blush: but the things listed above would seem possible

3. arts/crafts - from my wife, not me. Although I can show him/her how to change a toilet if need be :bow:

4. NOT cheerleading/dancing - my wife said no way to this almost the first time we discussed, "hey, what if we had kids..."

5. School - this one's in stone. I don't care what the classes are in, but if any of the above cut into this one, they need to be cut back.


Although, last time I checked, kids don't always follow their parent's plans, so I'll probably end up with a chess-playing, motorcycle-riding, champion quilter.

[mebisonII]

I hearby dub myself..."The Thread Killer"