I like open enrollment. It's the closest a sparsely populated rural state like South Dakota can get to offering practical school choice without shortchanging lower-income students and gutting the public school system (which is really what voucher fantasists want to do).
But the nice folks who voted for open enrollment in 1997 (including then-Senators Dennis Daugaard and Mike Rounds) have sent us down a path that many schools do not like. Thirty public school districts have proposed a measure to make open-enrolling students ineligible for varsity sports for one year. Currently, students who open enroll and join a new school on the first day of school can participate in all SDHSAA activities right away. Students who change schools by open enrollment during the school year must sit out games for about nine weeks.
Interestingly, the amendment text and ballot include a rationale for approving the change but no summary of opposing views. Here's is the rationale offered by the thirty sponsoring schools:
- Transferring greatly affects parity. Schools are classified by enrollment, yet someone could grab the best athletes from other towns and compete in the class their school falls under according to enrollment. Right now there is absolutely no deterrent from stopping people from "loading up" and essentially creating all star teams that would in essence be competing against teams that have been built in more traditional manners, or worse yet, have been depleted because solid athletes have left to join these "assembled" teams.
- We are just tipping the iceberg with the detriments of full fledged open enrollment with no obstacles in place for transferring. The practice of recruiting, whether it is by a coach, parent, booster, or team members in a summer league or traveling team must be curtailed to keep the competitive balance and protect the integrity of school teams. Other states have discovered this as well and have taken similar steps to accomplish those goals.
- Help keep teams stable.
- Keep threats to leave under control. The way it is now, if an athlete doesn't like something or was disciplined and the parent does not agree the parent holds the trump card by saying if you do not change something, we will open enroll to another school.
- Make students and parents deal with problems instead of running from them.
- The original intent of the open enrollment statute was to provide academic opportunities for students who may not have been afforded those opportunities in their home school district. It does not appear that this is the case anymore. Open enrollment must be considered much more carefully or we will have a continued decline in the very things we should be teaching our students in co-curricular activities. Things like loyalty to your school, teammates, coaches, and community. We are facilitating the "ME FIRST" society and the attitude of "I'll do what is best for me"—we should not. I question whether we are teaching students the correct things by letting them go to where things are set up better for them to win a state title—that should not be what we are all about [Proposed Amendment #1, SDHSAA Annual Meeting Agenda, 2012.04.17].
I have no data on just how extensive athlete recruiting is in South Dakota high school athletics. But the rationale for this amendment appears to be focused too much on state titles and not enough on the core issue of student participation. If supporters of this anti-open-enrollment amendment can demonstrate that open enrollment is taking away student opportunities to participate, then they have a good argument. But there is a difference between offering students equal opportunities to play basketball and ensuring "parity" in the chance to win a state trophy. (If that "parity" were a primary goal, we'd make West Central's running backs wear ankle weights.)
Rationale #6, on loyalty, smells of the same misguided sense of school "ownership" of students that motivates Madison's support for restricting the free travel of buses from other school districts. What loyalty do students and parents owe to a school where they feel they are not getting the best education available? Why should we punish students and families who decide in good conscience that the best solution for their problem is not to keep forcing their square-peg kids into the round holes of their current school district but to seek a different educational setting?
Madison is among the thirty schools pushing this restriction on open-enrolling students. (The SDHSAA lists 31, but KJAM says Oldham-Ramona is incorrectly included on that list.) Seventeen of those thirty schools saw net losses in student numbers due to open enrollment in the 2009-2010 school year. But the amendment also has support from Chester, a destination for many sporty open enrollers from Madison.
Note that the proposed restriction isn't as bad as it could be. Open-enrolled students would only have to sit out varsity games. They could still practice and compete at the freshman and junior varsity levels... assuming that the school to which they are open enrolling has a large enough program to muster freshman and JV teams alongside the varsity squad. And of course, open enrollers could still participate immediately in the activities that will really boost their test scores and get them into college: the amendment does not restrict participation in debate, music, and other fine arts activities. The omission of fine arts activities from this debate probably reflects as much the merit of fine arts coaches who don't let competition cloud their number-one priority of serving their students as it reflects the inordinate preoccupation of some administrators with athletics.
The South Dakota High School Activities Association approved putting this measure to a vote of its members schools at its April 17 annual meeting. Schools have until May 29 to discuss the matter and submit their votes to SDHSAA. Whichever way you lean, if you consider open enrollment, school choice, and student participation important, now might be a good time to jawbone you local school administrators and board members.
Preoccupation with and micromanagement of varsity athletics by school officials is not good for education. With all of the "off the chart" issues in education these days (technology-enhanced teaching/learning, distance education options exploding by the day, etc) and state mandated changes related to curriculum, evaluation of teachers and many other things, I do not believe that high school athletics should be so high on the list of what we worry about. Too much of the conversation among administrators at professional conferences and meetings centers around who beat who in this or that sport, who's going to the state tournament, and if a certain tall kid is going to move from town "a" to town "b". I'm not saying this is not important, and the politics in many towns is all about varsity sports- but superintendents have a duty to their profession to rise above this and provide more solid, comprehensive educational leadership.
The comments at the end of the SDHSAA ballot supporting the additional restrictions on varsity athletes who open enroll are shallow on substance. These comments reveal the mentality...... the whining, playground type complaints about what's "fair" and wanting to force people to be fair, loyal, etc. We don't teach loyalty to a team or town by taking away options to move elsewhere yet this is the mentality. Does this make any sense to you comrade?
Aside from this we have the paternalistic attitude of school administrators shaming and trivializing the choices of students and families. Maybe athletics is the most important thing for this or that family.... who am I to tell them their priorities are unethical or whatever? Some of these students that do move will get enough attention to perhaps end up with a scholarship or other opportunity they might not otherwise have.... but not if we "punish" them by taking away their eligibility for varsity athletics for a year when they open enroll.
One last thing..... everyone knows Rutland has some very talented athletes. I would not dream of taking away any choice that they have to attend school anywhere else for whatever reason they might choose to go there. Students attend Rutland because of the total picture of their circumstances and the opportunities we provide compared to the other schools. The students (and their families) get to decide where they want to go to school and should be free to compete in athletics at whatever school they attend.
I am in favor of this proposal. By decreasing the value of sports in student transfer decisions academics would then be the primary concern, as it should be.
I can see plenty of crappy parents transferring their kids to play on the good team regardless of how poorly the school performs academically.
I support this proposal.
In MN, open enrollment, with no restrictions, is the rule of the MN High School Athletic League. It's been many, many years since a non-private (ie-recruiting) school won any state athletic championships beyond the smallest schools classes. Giving all schools a fair chance is the right thing to do. Those schools will do well or poorly with that chance, but they will have it.
I too, believe the purpose of open enrollment was intended to be academic benefit. This proposal does not change that. In fact, it strengthens it.
I agree with Mr. Fahrenwald and others that athletics are overemphasized in academic settings, but it's not going to change through wishful thinking. This rule has the potential to perhaps diminish the attention athletics get.
I see it as a win/win. It boosts the importance of education, and limits the focus on athletics.
I'm beginning to think that with all these ills in the education world, and the red herrings like 1.2.3.4, and the starving school lunch children and teachers whining to raise MY taxes so THEY can buy more fancy cars, we might just be better off appointing somebody as sort of an all-powerful education czar. Outside of the government. I've got a coupla ideas, and Mr. H. ranks right near the top. What say you, Mr. H? Would you accept such an ascension to the throne?
I'm all for this proposal. Open enrollment should be about academics. I've seen students open enroll for a season only to return to their "home" school when their chosen activity is finished. If a student wants to open enroll, this proposal won't stop that, it only limits their ability to participate in varsity athletics which is more than fair IMHO.
I wish you all could spend time in juvenile court to hear parent after parent faux proudly tell the judge they held Bubba back so he'd be bigget for football. That's when one realizes extra-curricular activites are holding back scholarly achievement.
How many people commenting actually have experience with open enrollment?
I think this issue is being blown all out of proportion. You may have some kids that play the system but you also have kids who may be able to get off the bench and play and become a great player because they are able to open enroll. In many schools, coaches start grooming their starters in grade school and if you do not catch their eye at that time you are always on the second string. Changing to a different school can give that athlete a chance to develop his/her skills.
Also, do you punish a student who changes schools for other reasons, such as bullying, when it is not handled properly or happens before or after school at their current school.
I think there are much less drastic ways to handle this then making them sit out a whole year. Maybe the transfering student should not be able to be a starter for the 1st half of a season. If athletics is the only reason for the open enrolling then that would make them think twice, but if there are other pressing reasons to change, then they would still have the opportunity to grow and advance in their chosen sport.
There is a simple solution to the problem: forced consolidation into a handful of districts, the elimination of all sports and extra curricular activities, and getting rid of open enrollment. The state would tell you where you child would attend. All classes and tests could be standardized. One teacher could lecture online state-wide to all of the kids while aides and computers could pick up the at the individual schools. We might be able to get to the point where students never had to leave home to learn. Think of the savings: no more transportation costs.
I know that at a few districts, athletics can be the most important reason for someone to transfer, but is it a big enough problem to take away the opportunity of the rest of the open enrolled students in the state to participate in sports?
We don't need a new rule or law to fix every perceived problem. Every legislative session, lawmakers propose 500-700 bills. Is life was so bad that we need 500-700 corrections each year?
Our entire culture emphasizes sports in school far too much. We could achieve most of the benefits of interscholastic sports with intramural competition and private activities. Why have one basketball team where kids get cut when you could have a bunch of local teams for everyone who wants to play?
Grudz, I would consider your appointment to the czar's throne. After all, I did study Russian. ;-) But seriously, you'd have to work on me hard to trade working directly with kids in the classroom for sitting in an office in Pierre playing administrator.
Michael, I have direct experience with open enrollers as my students. Does that count?
School shopping happens in debate and other programs as well as sports. Strong programs, whether in debate, theatre, orchestra or sports, will attract the talented participants.
My daughter went to middle school in Hermosa. That's in the Custer school district. Traditionally Hermosa students can choose to go to Custer or Rapid City. My daughter chose Rapid City Central because she wanted to debate. Custer didn't have a program.
Cory, yes that would count. I hope you appreciated my blatant sarcasm above.
And Donald, when debate provides the academic benefits it does, I totally back your daughter's choice. Debate, orchestra, and similar programs will be strong factors in my wife and I's decision on where to send our daughter to high school. I will be irate if grouchy schools who can't offer what we want for our child try to stand in the way of her participating in those activities elsewhere.
By the same token, even though I don't care much for varsity sports, I hesitate to deny other parents with other priorities a similar right to seek the education they prefer.