Solving the Transfer Policy Issue

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:18 am

I believe a change of residence is still needed to avoid penalty, they just dropped the stipulation that it be in the same pub school boundary that the private is located in, eg Richfield for AHA or STL for BSM.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:52 am

Here is the original proposal, the REMOVED areas are in red. We don't know from the Strib article what the new wording is.

Agenda Item #9E
December 7, 2006
Minnesota State High School League
Transfer Eligibility Committee
November 15, 2006
Meeting Notes
Students who transfer from one school district attendance area to another school district
attendance area are eligible if:
1. they are entering 9th grade for the first time
2. their parents move from one school district attendance area to another school district
attendance area
NOTE: Criteria for determining a change of residence include, but are not limited to:
o No family members continue to reside at the previous address or attend
school in the prior school district
o Change of driver’s license
o Verification of the residence identified
o Homestead credit
o Utility bill
o Etc.
3. Court ordered transfer under a child protection order, placement in a foster home, or a
juvenile court disposition order
This is inclusive for all students in grades 9-12 AND for any student in grade 7 or 8 who has
played at the varsity level in any sport.
A change of residence is considered to be a move from one school district attendance area to
another school district attendance area. The board of education of the school district shall
determine the school’s attendance area. For purposes of the transfer rule, the attendance
area for a non-public school shall be defined as the same attendance area as the public school
in which the non-public school is located.
Students whose parents move from one school district attendance area to another school
district attendance area may:
1. Complete the marking period in their current school OR
2. Complete the rest of the school year in their current school OR
3. Complete their high school career in their current school. For purposes of varsity
eligibility, a student who transfers following the completion of items 1 and 2 above will
be considered to be a transfer student.
A student who does not meet any of the criteria for eligibility, as identified above, shall be
determined to be ineligible at the varsity level in all activities for one (1) full calendar year (365
days) from the date of the transfer. Each subsequent transfer, without having met the prior
ineligibility period, will cause the student to be ineligible for one (1) calendar year (365 days)
from the last day of the previous period of ineligibility. A student may not transfer from one
school to another, nor will a change in residence by the student’s parents from one school
district attendance area to another enable the student to gain eligibility. All periods of
ineligibility must be served in order for a student to represent his/her school team(s) in any
MSHSL-sponsored activity.
Students who transfer but who have not met the required conditions of transfer for varsity
eligibility will be eligible at all levels of competition below the varsity level and for practice as
determined by each individual school board.
The effective date of this bylaw shall be June 15, 2007. A student must be officially enrolled in
the school he/she intends to attend effective with the 2007-08 school year. Per Board of
Directors’ policy, a student who enrolls in a different school or practices with a school team in
the new school during the school season in that sport shall be deemed to have, in fact,
transferred to the new school.
According to the League’s Constitution, the Board of Directors, “ . . . shall establish a due
process procedure for a student or parent who wishes to contest a school’s failure to certify the
eligibility of a student.” This language shall include any Federal or State laws that speak
specifically to a student’s move from one school to another and the subsequent eligibility of
that student.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:48 am

From the SPP...

MSHSL board to vote on tougher transfer rule
BY TIM LEIGHTON
Pioneer Press
Changes in the transfer rule are expected to take another step toward reality when the Minnesota State High School League's board of directors meets today in Brooklyn Center.

If a committee recommendation is approved, students who transfer under open enrollment would no longer be able to do so without penalty, and the penalty for transferring would be increased from a half-season to a full year.

In December, the board tabled planned action on the amendment to the league's bylaws because it wanted more time to tweak the language and solicit feedback from member schools.

The MSHSL has been studying the issue since last summer.

If the proposal is approved, it would move to the 48-member representative assembly for a vote in March. If approved then, the new rules could take effect for the 2007-08 school year.

Wayzata activities director Jaime Sherwood, president of the board of directors, said a major part of the original proposal remains intact: one year of varsity ineligibility for student-athletes who change schools without a change of residence after their freshman year.

"This should slow transferring down," Sherwood said. "It will stop the all-star team thing where you pull together players to form a team and go to one school."

Sherwood said two parts of the original proposal have been eliminated:

• Private schools using public school boundaries based on school locations. The change would have required students who transferred to a private school to live in the public school district where the private school is located.

• If a seventh- or eighth-grade student participates at the varsity level, any transfer after those years would require one year of ineligibility.

Sherwood said a subcommittee of private school representatives met in early January to discuss compromises to the proposal to implement public school boundaries on private schools.

The private school subcommittee initially considered a 30-mile radius for private school boundaries. But Sherwood said a 20-mile radius might be agreed to.

"All of the schools have had a chance to weigh in," he said. "All people might not agree with this statement, but the league does do a good job of listening to its member schools."

Totino-Grace activities director Mike Smith was part of the proceedings but declined to discuss specifics.

"I just want things to be fair for everyone, even-Steven," Smith said. "I don't want this to be a public vs. private kind of thing."

There also are expected to be criteria giving leniency to a student-athlete who moves to Minnesota from another state.

"There are parents who live in our state that don't understand (the transfer rule)," Sherwood said. "It might be a lot to ask someone new to the state to understand it right away."

The board of directors has authority to amend any part of the proposal before voting.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:28 pm

And just in from the Strib...

The Minnesota State High School League board of directors approved changes to the transfer rule Thursday, moving the proposal one step closer to becoming reality.
The major component of the proposal -- one year of varsity ineligibility for athletes who change schools without a change of residence -- was passed by the board at MSHSL headquarters in Brooklyn Center.

The proposal will be passed along to the representative assembly, the MSHSL's 48-member legislative body. That group could vote on the proposal in March, and if approved the new rules could take effect for the 2007-08 school year.

allhoc11 · Post by **allhoc11** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:30 pm

xk1, you beat me to it, here's the link

http://www.startribune.com/526/story/974609.html

Zamman · Post by **Zamman** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:04 pm

Actually a kid can go from a public to a public and play JV after playing varsity at the previous public school. They would need to sit out the varsity season. Does not matter if they went from public to private or the other way around. I am sure that some schools will try and play a player somwhere along the schedule. You will need to get caught and someone would need to raise a stink about it....Not to smart, but I bet it will happen......

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:29 pm

Zamman wrote:Actually a kid can go from a public to a public and play JV after playing varsity at the previous public school. They would need to sit out the varsity season. Does not matter if they went from public to private or the other way around. I am sure that some schools will try and play a player somwhere along the schedule. You will need to get caught and someone would need to raise a stink about it....Not to smart, but I bet it will happen......

It would be unwise of any school AD or coach to take such a chance, they could probably lose their eligibility or jobs.
But I am sure there are a few that think they are above the rules.

Zamman · Post by **Zamman** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:16 pm

That was my point exactly......

hshockeyfan91 · Post by **hshockeyfan91** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:52 pm

How will this impact next year? I think June 15 is the date I've seen as the start date.

I know of a kid who has already signed the open enrollment form to transfer from one public school to another next season, but will be completing the year at the "old" school. Is she ok to play varsity next season at the "new" school? It would seem pretty unfair if she wasn't, given that I don't believe she has an option to return to the "old" school once the OE paperwork has been signed, and the new rule won't even be official until sometime in March (it might not even pass, right?).

I'm not quite sure why there is such a rush to get this in place for next season. I would think that passing the rule and making sure everyone knows how it will work (since it is pretty draconian) would be a wiser step than just cramming something in quickly.

Anyway, as long as anyone who signs paperwork by June 15 this year is ok, then the timing is just a bit of a hassle. If the rule means that you have to physically be attending the "new" school by June 15 (which wouldn't happen), then I think the proposed timing is horrible.

Anyone know more?

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:37 pm

My guess is the rush is to allow those already in the process of transferring the opportunity to do so but to eliminate the usual late summer transfers.

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:48 pm

xk1 wrote:My guess is the rush is to allow those already in the process of transferring the opportunity to do so but to eliminate the usual late summer transfers.

xk1, I think you are right on this.

Now the big question is, are there any big names that will try to take advantage of the "window of opportunity" by transferring before the deadline?

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:14 pm

This will have no effect on outstate MN, they just move anyway. In the metro I think it will slow down upper class transfers but increase middle school to privates and other established programs.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:43 am

I found this quote from the SPPP this morning disturbing

Tom Dolan, a Mounds View school district resident and a member of the 45-person transfer committee that studied the issue, addressed the board Thursday before debate began.

"The star athlete, regardless of how they got there (to the school), is a cancer,'' he said. "It's community theft. Schools are a mirror and treasure of their community.''

The idea that a community owns a student is just wrong and it bothers me that this committee contained people that think this way.

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:01 am

xk1 wrote:I found this quote from the SPPP this morning disturbing
Tom Dolan, a Mounds View school district resident and a member of the 45-person transfer committee that studied the issue, addressed the board Thursday before debate began.

"The star athlete, regardless of how they got there (to the school), is a cancer,'' he said. "It's community theft. Schools are a mirror and treasure of their community.''
The idea that a community owns a student is just wrong and it bothers me that this committee contained people that think this way.

I am sure that any HS Coach and community that has put time and effort into a player could feel slighted when a player leaves.

But just as it is easy to say that the community does not own the player the player does not own the community they are transfering into, nor do they pay taxes in that community!
But they do enjoy all of the benefits.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:41 am

Feeling slighted is one thing, feeling ownership is another.

Bensonmum · Post by **Bensonmum** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:44 am

It's also troublesome that this supposedly responsible adult is comparing a kid to a cancer.
I believe that the state money that goes to school districts follows the kid when he open enrolls, so it's not like the OE student is a burden to the school district. That's why school districts want OE students.

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:59 am

Bensonmum wrote:I believe that the state money that goes to school districts follows the kid when he open enrolls, so it's not like the OE student is a burden to the school district. That's why school districts want OE students.

The students state portion I believe goes with the student!

But it is the residents that vote to improve that communitys school and its facilities, and it is that community's residents that pay the local taxes for those improvements.
But I can see why the school would want the money from the OE, But the community might not, Even tho those schools were built for the community.
An example would be Eden Prairie HS Not OE HS or Metro HS.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:09 am

Perhaps the residents of those communities losing students need to vote in more money for rinks, coaching (not to mention education) and they won't be losing so many.

SEhockeyDAD · Post by **SEhockeyDAD** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:37 am

xk1 wrote:Perhaps the residents of those communities losing students need to vote in more money for rinks, coaching (not to mention education) and they won't be losing so many.

I have to strongly disagree with this statement. It sounds to me more like trying to rationalize the practise of pooling talent than anything else.

First, an entire community isn't going to rally around spending for athletics when most need to struggle with financing better teachers and educational facilities as it is.

Second, they'd have to spend money not only for rinks, but then also for football fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, baseball diamonds and coaches for all of them. Not even close to realistic.

Third, and most important, it wouldn't make any difference anyway. Kids who transfer for athletics aren't moving because the hometown athletic facilities drove them to switch schools. Its because the can be on a team that already has better players and those players, their parents or even coaches have encouraged them to join their team.

IMHO, telling a community who loses a star player that they should have treated her/him better is disingenuous and even mean-spirited. I'm positive that every community out there tries the best they can to encourage and train athletes.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:05 am

This is what happens, a family is not satisfied with what their community has, be it athletic or educational resources, they look elsewhere. It's an open state and they have that right. It's only logical they are going to look to places that do have adequate resources. They are also going to look for stability. This is no longer an argument over education vs athletics, that's over, you got your rule, so now you can transfer for whatever reason you want without listening to all the wrong reason stuff, you just need to do it in 9th grade.
If these students are such a source of community pride, you need to do something to keep them or you are going to lose them, it's a choice, I'm not advocating athletics over education but if you don't supply both you will see families transferring to schools that do and you have to live with the consequences.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:08 am

Third, and most important, it wouldn't make any difference anyway. Kids who transfer for athletics aren't moving because the hometown athletic facilities drove them to switch schools. Its because the can be on a team that already has better players and those players, their parents or even coaches have encouraged them to join their team.

You are correct in that better facilities, ice time and players determine the destination of the transfer, I disagree about your first statement. Having poor players, frequent coaching changes/bad coaches and no ice time is a key factor in why the transfers leave their home school.

keepitreal · Post by **keepitreal** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:47 am

xk1 wrote:
Third, and most important, it wouldn't make any difference anyway. Kids who transfer for athletics aren't moving because the hometown athletic facilities drove them to switch schools. Its because the can be on a team that already has better players and those players, their parents or even coaches have encouraged them to join their team.
You are correct in that better facilities, ice time and players determine the destination of the transfer, I disagree about your first statement. Having poor players, frequent coaching changes/bad coaches and no ice time is a key factor in why the transfers leave their home school.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. Believe it or not, academics and environment does factor into the equation much stronger than many realize. Perhaps I am in the minority view on this, but I know several families who have transferred or have given strong consideration to other schools because of a troublesome or less-than-challenging classroom environment, the administration, problems with peers, the propensity for crime/drugs/booze, and dozens of other reasons. Athletic facilities would be somewhere down the list I would think.

It's easy to point to several high-profile transfers and athletics certainly may be their overriding consideration. However for every star player in pursuit of a trophy, there are many, many other students who also play sports looking for something else, or find their current situation intolerable, whether socially, athletically or academically. Unfortunately you will never hear their stories...

The frontal language and attitudes of the MSHSL people who have been interviewed certainly indicates a blind spot to acknowledging this, only dealing with the high-profile abuses. Penalizing any student's extracurricular participation for a year will undoubtedly have the desired impact on OE statistically-speaking, and the MSHSL may pat each other on the back as a result. But I have always maintained it's just not as simple as they believe. If there was some moderation, such as a mechanism for appeals to the transfer ineligibility rule, I would be much more in favor of it.

Let the kids play!

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:58 am

keepitreal,

I agree with your statements on the academic aspect learned long ago the transferphobes really aren't going to listen to anyone claiming academics as a reason. There are many more reasons as well but on this topic if you are a good athlete and transfer athletics is assumed to be the driving force. This is also what the MSHSL believes so I am moving on. The new rules take care of that anyway, if you are willing to move or transfer into 9th grade the reason is academic (pun intended).

hockeygod · Post by **hockeygod** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:01 am

My daughter goes to hill murray, she goes there because i feel it offers her the best overall high school education and experiance available to us. She goes there because I have been very fotunate in life and have the resources to provide her with this kind of eduation. If I wasn't able to provide this for her, I would still want the same things for her but I would have to get it for her through the public school system. The MSHL league just took this opportunitty away from people that can't afford to give there kids what I can afford to give my daughter and I feel that is almost criminal.

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:11 am

xk1 wrote:This is what happens, a family is not satisfied with what their community has, be it athletic or educational resources, they look elsewhere.

Why do we then choose to live in that community if it no good?

why is it good enough for the majority

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Solving the Transfer Policy Issue

MSHSL board approves change in transfer rule

How Does The Timing Work Out?

oe