HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

No state funds come into the school for the child - why should a school provide a non-resident with subsidized extra-curricular activities? Can't see it being allowed at the district level for most public schools.

I agree completely, this has been a problem with OE/transfers in smaller school districts from the on-set.
_________________
OE for Sports Activities does not equal FREE AGENCY. If it does then High School Athletes should be looking for Sports Agents @ 12 yrs. old. I would bet there's alot of parents who would Pay the Money!

thefriendlyfan wrote:I know you weren't insulting Edina... but it would be appreciated if Edina was left out of conversations regarding O/E because, as I just mentioned, they only have 1 open enrollee

Yes, B Hartman would be considered an OE student as she transferred to Edina for her Senior year. And yes, don't kid yourself, C Smith would also be considered an OE. The fact that she OE in Middle School has no bearing on the OE definition. The family lives in SLP and probably OE back in Middle School so she would qualify to play in the Edina Hockey Association U12 or U14 programs and then move on to the high school team.

For the right reason OE is good for the student. If a public school is good enough for the student to transfer for the education/athletics why wouldn't the parents consider relocating to that community?

xk1 wrote:

It will be interesting to see how playing for your old school works out in practice.

I hope my daughter is never involved with a team that has something like this. Talk about ugly. I can't believe the MSHSL kept a possiblity like this open. I said it tongue in cheek once before, but now I have to seriously consider that maybe having Minnesota Hockey run Girls' HS Hockey isn't a bad idea.

If a public school is good enough for the student to transfer for the education/athletics why wouldn't the parents consider relocating to that community?

Maybe they can't afford it, that's why OE exists, to give equal opportunity.

xk1 wrote:

If a public school is good enough for the student to transfer for the education/athletics why wouldn't the parents consider relocating to that community?

Maybe they can't afford it, that's why OE exists, to give equal opportunity.

Good point! Every families situation is different. Yes, OE for the education aspect exists for good reasons. The problem started when the OE was used as a recruiting mechnism to win sporting events. The pure student will always benefit from OE because they want the better education that will help them succeed in life.

wingsrule wrote:Good point! Every families situation is different. Yes, OE for the education aspect exists for good reasons. The problem started when the OE was used as a recruiting mechnism to win sporting events. The pure student will always benefit from OE because they want the better education that will help them succeed in life.

OE is also good in that it helps promote competition amongst the schools to provide a better education. It helps loosen the geographic monopolies schools have been given within their boundaries. Just like in business, monopolies are created by regulation or putting up artificial restrictions that prevent competition, and over time monopolies become less efficient and tend to focus less and less on the "customer".

I guess all of this doesn't apply to athletics, because the MSHSL's answer was more regulation. All high school varsity teams will now have what amounts to an effective monopoly (exclusive rights) on their athletes from 9th grade on. Some who favor OE for eductional purposes think this is the right step to take for athletics, but I've run into many people who think the MSHSL went too far.