The New York Times reports on the debate between those pushing one-sport kids and those pulling back.
Bill Pennington writes (excerpt):
In Montclair, N.J., a group of parents fed up with clashing schedules every spring for traveling baseball and traveling soccer teams persuaded local baseball officials to sponsor a fall-only soccer team, so their children could play each sport at a high level at different times of the year.
At La Jolla Country Day School in San Diego, officials who were dismayed about pressures on athletes as young as 11 years old to specialize in one sport decided to require the school’s athletes to play at least two sports. The school also designed an unusual dual-sport participation contract, which requires high school and travel team coaches to put in writing how they plan to resolve all scheduling conflicts to avoid overtaxing the athlete.
In Connecticut, the high school sports governing board prohibits athletes from playing on traveling club teams in the same season they play the sport in high school. Other states have enacted similar rules, sometimes leading to lawsuits challenging the rules. So far the high schools have prevailed, although many school officials fear this clash will ultimately be won by travel teams — when they replace high school sports altogether.
“The shame of it is you see how hardened these 14-year-olds are by the time they get to high school,” said Bruce Ward, director of physical education and athletics in San Diego’s public schools. “They’re talented, terrific players, but I don’t see the joy. They look tired. They’ve played so much year-round, they are like little professionals.”
Why did we fight the cold war, some critics are saying half in jest, if we planned to adopt the East German sports model?