Question of Eligibility IHSA answered- no surpris

[doctorwho]

Okay, I was going to wait to post this thread until I got some answers from IHSA but I got my answers in the sub rules.

Remember all the 'spirited' debate here ( and on green) about how supposedly if kids chose to stay @ WVHS and not go to MVHS this year -- they would be ineligible to play soprts. And I told everyone that I talked to IHSA and that call resided with the SD and UEC...well here is the darn proof. They absolutely would have still been eligible to play - regardless of the scare tactics once again used to frighten people.

Will this nonsense ever end ? Maybe another survey is needed to show how happy everyone is with the communications

1st - here is the NEW rule on eligibility - residence - going into effect in July 2010. It will grandfather in those who attended another school in the district this year- so all those sports (cough cough) medical transfers to Neuqua will now stand.....way to play the system as some people obviously weren't intimidated by our admin telling of sports inelgibility.

2nd after that the next post will cover the by law changes that clearly shows in a multi school HS district the 8th grade kids had a choice also.
As did those @ WVHS who went to Metea and gave up varsity sports this year because they were 'told' they had to. Some people - and you know who you are- owe an apology to all those affected for spouting the district line- which again was wrong







IHSA Announcements
January 12, 2010

IHSA Schools Approve All Eight Proposals On Amendment Ballot
All eight proposals on the ballot in the annual Illinois High School Association (IHSA) member school referendum were approved in voting by the membership last month. The online ballots were tabulated and certified in the IHSA Office Tuesday (Jan. 12). All the by-law changes take effect on July 1, 2010.
Here is a summary of the successful proposals and the vote totals:

Proposal 1 (passed 271-158) provides that a non-boundaried public school’s actual enrollment, rather than the school’s multiplied enrollment, be used to determine eligibility for a coop. The multiplier will still be used to determined the classification of the coop.
Proposal 2 (passed 423-5) allows the Illinois School for the Visually Impaired to participate with other schools for the blind, even if those schools are not members of their state high school association, provided those schools are governed by the North Central Association of Schools for the Blind.
Proposal 3 (passed 405-23) allows multiple-school activities sponsored by organizations such as the Illinois Coordinating Council for Career and Technical Student Organizations or the Illinois Association of Student Councils to begin as early as 8:00 am on a school day.
Proposal 5 (passed 320-107) provides that, for a student in a multiple high school district to be eligible with regard to residence at a boundaried public school, the student must live in the attendance area of the school he or she attends.
Proposal 7 (passed 291-139) provides that when the Illinois State Board of Education has granted a tuition waiver to a student attending the school where his or her parent teaches, the student shall be eligible with regard to residence.
Proposal 8 (passed 255-175) provides for a process by which a non-boundaried school may apply to have the 1.65 enrollment multiplier waived. The process will be established by the IHSA Board of Directors with input from a subcommittee composed of members of IHSA staff and the IHSA Legislative Commission.
Proposal 9 (passed 339-87) removes the prohibition on participation in boys and girls basketball tournaments held during the week of IHSA Boys or Girls Basketball Regional Tournaments.
Proposal 14 (passed 383-42) establishes a season limitation for Competitive Dance that is identical to the season limitation already in place for Competitive Cheer.

[doctorwho]

So for those who argued the eligibilty because they trusted what they were told -- this shows clearly there would have been NO eligibility loss last year for the transferrees or those who chose to stay had the district approved-- they tried to make the IHSA out to be the bad guys - nope.
---------------------------------------------



2009-10 -- Proposal No. 5
Amend By-law 3.031.1 – Residence
Submitted by Jim Cozzolino, Official Representative, Springfield (Lanphier)
By-law 3.031.1 currently reads:
3.031.1 They reside full time with their parents, custodial parent or guardian appointed by a judge of a
court having proper jurisdiction, or they currently and for at least the last two years prior to the
student’s enrolling in high school, have lived with another family member or relative who has
provided full support and adult supervision for the student, as though they were the guardian,
within the boundaries of the public school district in which the high school they attend is located;
or
Revise By-law 3.031.1 to read:
3.031.1 They reside full time with their parents, custodial parent or guardian appointed by a judge of a
court having proper jurisdiction, or they currently and for at least the last two years prior to the
student’s enrolling in high school, have lived with another family member or relative who has
provided full support and adult supervision for the student, as though they were the guardian,
within the boundaries of the public school district in which the attendance area of the high
school they attend is located; or
Rationale
At the moment, eighth grade graduates entering a multiple high school district can attend any high school
they want.
a. This amendment will keep students from multiple high school districts from attending high schools
in their public school district but outside their high school’s attendance boundaries. This
amendment would not allow a student to attend a different high school in the same public school
district without the risk of a possible penalty.
b. Will restrict coaches in multiple public high school districts from recruiting student athletes
because they will have to attend the public school in the attendance area where their address is.
c. Levels the playing field for single high school districts whose students do not have a choice as
where to attend high school.
d. This amendment takes the transfer issue out of the hands of multiple school district officials and
into the hands of the IHSA.
Pros
Addresses the issue of students not residing in the attendance area of the school where they attend.
Allows the Executive Director to make rulings based on circumstances necessitating the transfer.
Cons
None.

[doctorwho]

this is the main rule just passed -- that now closes the opportunity ( but it was open when all this happened) - and also allows for anyone who attended the school out of their attendance area last semester to stay there.



BOTTOM LINE:
... the class of 2012 could have gone to whatever school they wanted and now the rules will allow them to stay there...all under approval from IHSA --


no more blaming the boogeyman


2009-10 -- Proposal No. 6
Amend By-law 3.031.3 – Residence
Submitted by Phil Morrison, Principal, Tolono (Unity)
By-law 3.031.3 currently reads:
3.031.3 They reside full time with one birth or adoptive parent without assignment of custody or legal
guardianship by the court, provided:
(1) their residence is in the district in which the member school they attend is located; and
(2) they attended that member school the previous school term.
Revise By-law 3.031.3 to read:
3.031.3 They reside full time with one birth or adoptive parent or other relative without assignment of
custody or legal guardianship by the court, provided:
(1) their residence is in the district in which the member school they attend is located; and
(2) they attended that member school the previous school term.
This grandfathers in those who have already made the move


Rationale
Families are facing increasing economic and other hardships. This would allow students to remain in the
district and have eligibility when they are residing in the district with a relative.
Pros
Only affects students who are currently residing in the district.
Takes care of students who are left in difficult situations who have been residing in the district.
Cons
Need to define “or other relative” more clearly.
Doesn’t address incoming freshmen.

[insider]

How will the validity of this new rule stand if it contradicts NCLB laws? It is my understanding if schools and in this case high schools do not meet NCLB requirements by the upcoming deadline, students will be allowed to chose an alternative school of their choice that is meeting stated progress standards according to the Feds? Wonder what made IHSA address thist now after all these years? Anyone know how many multi high school districts this affects in this state?

[doctorwho]

Feb 5, 2010 22:00:14 GMT -6 insider said:

How will the validity of this new rule stand if it contradicts NCLB laws? It is my understanding if schools and in this case high schools do not meet NCLB requirements by the upcoming deadline, students will be allowed to chose an alternative school of their choice that is meeting stated progress standards according to the Feds? Wonder what made IHSA address thist now after all these years? Anyone know how many multi high school districts this affects in this state?

not sure how many there are- but all it takes is one the size of CPS to make ones head swim with the mess it could be...

[Arch]

I want to make sure I'm recalling history correctly here:

The School Board/Admin said someone may not be eligible to play if they transferred schools. They either KNEW the decision was ultimately theirs to make for eligibility or they did not but made a statement without knowing because it fit an agenda.

If they KNEW it was their call to begin with, was this their way of saying If we like you, we'll say you are eligible but if we don't like you, we'll take it out on your kid and label them as in-eligible. ?

Seriously, which is it? They were ignorant but pretended to know (and were flat wrong), or they knew, but tried to use it as a threat.

Either case sucks, but I'd like to hear the official answer on this one.

[doctorwho]

Feb 6, 2010 8:54:04 GMT -6 Arch said:

I want to make sure I'm recalling history correctly here:

The School Board/Admin said someone may not be eligible to play if they transferred schools. They either KNEW the decision was ultimately theirs to make for eligibility or they did not but made a statement without knowing because it fit an agenda.

If they KNEW it was their call to begin with, was this their way of saying If we like you, we'll say you are eligible but if we don't like you, we'll take it out on your kid and label them as in-eligible. ?

Seriously, which is it? They were ignorant but pretended to know (and were flat wrong), or they knew, but tried to use it as a threat.

Either case sucks, but I'd like to hear the official answer on this one.

I made sure they knew - numerous times over the past few years - because I actually bothered to call the IHSA to find out There's no secrets with the IHSA they will tell you the way it is...... so you be the judge of why what was said was said.


btw- remember our super was the principal @ NV when this happened 15 years ago - so not knowing the rules...umm I don't think so.


Funny I don't see any responses either here or another place I posted it...just add this to the falsehoods told to the voters in this district...when will it stop ?

[Arch]

I think Gatordog should have read 3.031.3 before replying to this on Green


By-law 3.031.3 currently reads:
3.031.3 They reside full time with one birth or adoptive parent without assignment of custody or legal guardianship by the court, provided:
(1) their residence is in the district in which the member school they attend is located; and (2) they attended that member school the previous school term.
Revise By-law 3.031.3 to read:
3.031.3 They reside full time with one birth or adoptive parent or other relative without assignment of custody or legal guardianship by the court, provided:
(1) their residence is in the district in which the member school they attend is located; and
(2) they attended that member school the previous school term.
Rationale
Families are facing increasing economic and other hardships. This would allow students to remain in the district and have eligibility when they are residing in the district with a relative.
Pros
Only affects students who are currently residing in the district. Takes care of students who are left in difficult situations who have been residing in the district.
Cons
Need to define “or other relative” more clearly. Doesn’t address incoming freshmen.


Meaning: They can still play next year if they got their transfer this year. This appears to be, grandfathering.

So no, Gatordog, It appears that the many of the students who did get an exception for a transfer this year would not be ineligible next year. They must merely reside in the district and have attended the school last year.

This was classic:
"Our school board did exactly what the vast majority of IHSA voters said was the ethical and responsible way to handle this" ;D

Let me mark my calendar and wipe the soda off my screen. It looks like the exceptions made this year look like they will stand as far as eligibility goes for next year and the next

[doctorwho]

Feb 6, 2010 20:34:54 GMT -6 Arch said:

I think Gatordog should have read 3.031.3 before replying to this on Green


By-law 3.031.3 currently reads:
3.031.3 They reside full time with one birth or adoptive parent without assignment of custody or legal guardianship by the court, provided:
(1) their residence is in the district in which the member school they attend is located; and (2) they attended that member school the previous school term.
Revise By-law 3.031.3 to read:
3.031.3 They reside full time with one birth or adoptive parent or other relative without assignment of custody or legal guardianship by the court, provided:
(1) their residence is in the district in which the member school they attend is located; and
(2) they attended that member school the previous school term.
Rationale
Families are facing increasing economic and other hardships. This would allow students to remain in the district and have eligibility when they are residing in the district with a relative.
Pros
Only affects students who are currently residing in the district. Takes care of students who are left in difficult situations who have been residing in the district.
Cons
Need to define “or other relative” more clearly. Doesn’t address incoming freshmen.


Meaning: They can still play next year if they got their transfer this year. This appears to be, grandfathering.

So no, Gatordog, It appears that the many of the students who did get an exception for a transfer this year would not be ineligible next year. They must merely reside in the district and have attended the school last year.

This was classic:
"Our school board did exactly what the vast majority of IHSA voters said was the ethical and responsible way to handle this" ;D

Let me mark my calendar and wipe the soda off my screen. It looks like the exceptions made this year look like they will stand as far as eligibility goes for next year and the next

never let facts get in the way of supporting the school board and admin,,,


and please, I was also gagging over the ethical statement--
..... they did the ethical thing?? really ?? --when ? immediately following not telling the the correct facts to those who faced decisions ? Did they or did they not make the IHSA the bad guy in this when indeed that was NOT true, just as I said it wasn't all along ? Did they tell people the IHSA rules would make them ineligible? Yes they sure did.

they told the truth like Clinton told the truth on TV.( from a slanted point of view) .. Must be a different version of ethical than I have been taught-- I didn't realize it was ethical to mislead people with mis-statements...but I guess some view that as OK...

[Arch]

By Steckdad@Green:

"Great point about people getting exceptions doc but I think most of the exceptions(sports or otherwise) are not about a school preference but about getting their way."

===

Question: Why did the Board/Admin not hold the line they said was drawn and had NO EXCEPTIONS ? Why did they coward, cave and grant so many while still saying NO EXCEPTIONS! Were they afraid of lawsuits? That never stopped them before, did it? Why so many for sports? Trying to get them in before it was closed?

Are they going to keep with the spirit and tell all those with exceptions this year that they can not play next year and going forward unless they return to their area's assigned high school? If not, then I think Gatordog's spin about the board and admin trying to keep with 'the spirit' and the 'ethics' of the rules is just an empty load of crap.

[Arch]

It still sounds like Gatordog is confused about 3.031.3

It's not limited in scope to a broken family. As long as the kid attended the school last term AND where they are residing is WITHIN the district, they are eligible to play. The kid doesn't have to move at all for them to meet the requirement set forth in that section and it does not say that those living with BOTH parents are ineligible. A family can be in NV attendance area for the kid's 11th grade year, have to move from NV to MV area for 12th and still stay at NV (with an exception) and be eligible because their new place is WITHIN THE DISTRICT and they attended NV last year. Likewise, even if they don't move but lived in WV area and went to NV last year (with an exception), they still meet requirement 1) They are residing WITHIN THE DISTRICT and they meet requirement #2) they attended NV last year. They are eligible.

That's why it's basically a backdoor grandfathering.... to cheat the 'ethics' and 'spirit' of the new rules.

If you disagree with this, Gatordog, are you saying that the Admin is going to make everyone go back to the school they should be attending by attendance boundaries or are they going to keep with the 'spirit' and 'ethics' and make the kids who got transfers this year be INELIGIBLE to play sports next year?

[doctorwho]

Feb 8, 2010 12:22:26 GMT -6 Arch said:

It still sounds like Gatordog is confused about 3.031.3

It's not limited in scope to a broken family. As long as the kid attended the school last term AND where they are residing is WITHIN the district, they are eligible to play. The kid doesn't have to move at all for them to meet the requirement set forth in that section and it does not say that those living with BOTH parents are ineligible. A family can be in NV attendance area for the kid's 11th grade year, have to move from NV to MV area for 12th and still stay at NV (with an exception) and be eligible because their new place is WITHIN THE DISTRICT and they attended NV last year. Likewise, even if they don't move but lived in WV area and went to NV last year (with an exception), they still meet requirement 1) They are residing WITHIN THE DISTRICT and they meet requirement #2) they attended NV last year. They are eligible.

That's why it's basically a backdoor grandfathering.... to cheat the 'ethics' and 'spirit' of the new rules.

If you disagree with this, Gatordog, are you saying that the Admin is going to make everyone go back to the school they should be attending by attendance boundaries or are they going to keep with the 'spirit' and 'ethics' and make the kids who got transfers this year be INELIGIBLE to play sports next year?

...at this point nothing I am going to say is going to be acknowledged, just as it wasn't before. I suggest those who disagree do what those involved have done - simple call to IHSA director or assistant directors will get you your answer. Present this scenario as ask for how it fits with the news bylaws

A/ Student x lives within the boundaries of Waubonsie High School in IPSD 204 ( multi High School district) for school year 2009-10.
B/ Said student attended Neuqua Valley HS on 2008-09 as boundary changes were not in effect yet - then instead of moving to Waubonsie Valley HS in 2009-10 remained @ Neuqua Valley HS upon approval from the SD based on a medical/personal issue. Exception granted by SD.
(btw this is obvious as the kids who fit this wre eligible this year )
C. Said student ( class of 2012) plans to attend Neuqua Valley HS for school year 2010-11 ( and following year) - based on SD approval to attend that school versus the boundaried school

QUESTION: Does this student now have to move to the school within their boundary for 2010-11 ( based on new laws in effect July 2010) - in order to be eligible to play sports for their school -- or does the SD approval prior to July 2010 supercede the new rule and since they attended the other HS ( Neuqua) the previous year as well - they remain eligible just as they were in 2009-10.

I only ask this from the caller:

After you get your answer..please acknowledge that 1/ IPSD 204 gave out false information to those involved in that the IHSA did NOT have the authority/rules to make the kids ineligible this year- as parents were told. ( btw - this should be self-evident based on the changes from the new rules ) - and 2/ the kids who made the moves prior to July 2010 with SD approvals ARE grandfathered in eligible to the schools they attend today - period.

I look forward to the replies

[Arch]

You can present the exact same case for 2 neighbors who got exceptions for attendance this year and play sports this year... One is a single mom, widow for 10 years... the other is a nuclear family (mom and Dad).. According to Gatordog, the single mom's kid is eligible to play and the nuclear family's kid is no longer.

I don't think this is the marriage penalty and it's a blanket back door as long as the child is living WITHIN THE DISTRICT with SOME RELATIVE (court ordered or not).

[Arch]

Interesting to note from the ByLaws:

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE
Q. What is the “fundamental principle” underlying the residence by-laws?

A. High school sports are best controlled and conducted fairly when students reside full time with their parents and
attend high school in the district in which they reside with their parents. Departure from this basic premise requires circumstances which are within the parameters established within Article 1.460 of the IHSA Constitution, which do not conflict with the overall purpose and scope of the by-laws. (By-law 3.031.1)
=====

In the heading of the residence section we have this: "Once a student has attended high school, any change of the school attended by the student shall subject that student to the requirements of the rules applicable to transfers under Section 3.040 of these by-laws and its subsections."

In the cases we are talking about (class of 2012 and even class of 2013 who transferred this year) the transfer ALREADY happened and as such, as long as they are still living WITHIN district and have an APPROVED transfer standing (they all do), they should be eligible to play from how I'm reading things since the transfers happened PRIOR to July 1, 2010.

[Arch]

Further, for our class of 2012 and 2013 students:

3.034.1 Residential Students: Students attending public or private member schools as residential students, shall be eligible at the public or private member school in which they enroll provided they reside full time at such school. Eligibility of residential students who do not reside full time at the school they attend shall be determined under the applicable provisions of By-laws 3.031-3.034.
==========

This was already determined at transfer time prior to the Rule change that goes into effect on July 1 2010 because AT THE TIME, they were still residing IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT per the residency stipulation in 3.031.1 and they have been residing at the school they transferred to for the 2009/2010 school year.


Gatordog, you tried to apply 3.034.2 but that states " moves from the district or community traditionally served by that school following the student’s completion of the eleventh" We know that is not the case as they reside IN DISTRICT.