Logo

Shared Responsibility

March 26, 2013

My counterpart in Georgia has a nice way with words, and recently used that talent to add his perspective to topics like those we’ve been addressing here in Michigan.  In the March 2013 Georgia High School Association newsletter, under the title “All of Us Must ‘Pay the Price’ for Student-Athlete Wellness,” GHSA Executive Director Ralph Swearingin writes:

“In ‘History and Philosophy of Education’ courses many of us learned that an early concept in the American educational system involved the school operating ‘in loco parentis’ – in the place of the parent.  During those early days, that concept was applied to the authority of school personnel to regulate the behavior of students.  Over time, however, the application of that concept to school discipline has diminished.

“It is interesting to note that school personnel are called upon to fulfill parental roles in ways that were not prevalent in the past.  Over time there has been an evolution of responsibilities placed on the educational system to provide services that used to be provided by the family.  One such area involves the responsibility to be the ‘health and safety guardians’ of our students.  Debates about whether it is the school’s responsibility are non-productive.  This responsibility has been thrust upon member schools and state association staff members, and it is doubtful that this trend is reversible . . .

“The very nature of athletics makes it impossible to guarantee the safety of every student in every sport.  The goal is to minimize the risk to these students with prudent preparation and vigilant supervision.  While the American culture may be thrusting this responsibility on the school personnel, there are productive ways to send some of that responsibility back to the students and their families.

“. . . Students and their families need to be informed about all of these issues.  Preseason meetings with players and parents or guardians should involve the dissemination of information about relevant health and safety considerations . . .

“But education of players and their families is not enough.  Coaches must be certain to teach techniques that minimize risks, and to be certain that all equipment used in the sport are in good repair and are being used properly.  School personnel need to be certain that published guidelines and protocols are being followed.  Doing these things involves the expenditure of time and money, but the well-being of our students dictates that we ‘pay the price.’ ”

Transfer Trends

January 23, 2015

One of the responsibilities that schools have asked our organizations like the MHSAA to execute is the management of transfer student eligibility. Historically, many associations have linked eligibility to residence ... thus, for some the regulation has been called the "Residency Rule" or "Transfer/Residency Rule," not merely the "Transfer Rule."

Over the years, as society became more mobile and families less stable, these rules became more and more complicated; and now, for most state high school associations, this is the regulation that consumes the most (or second) most pages of their Handbooks. Over the years, this has also been the regulation most frequently challenged in court.

Over the years, some states have relaxed their transfer rule and others have refined their transfer rule. In either case, the transfer rule remains an imperfect rule, an imperfect net. Sometimes this net snags students who should not be made ineligible, and for those situations all associations have arranged some kind of waiver or appeal process. 

And sometimes, and much less easily solved, the net fails to catch the situations it really should ... the transfers that are not hardship related or the result of some very compelling educational need, but those that are obviously for athletic reasons. It is those that we have been most focused on in Michigan.

Our first effort to get at the most problematic transfers was the adoption for the 1997-98 school year of what we called the "Athletic MOTIVATED Transfer Rule" ... Regulation I, Section 9(E). Examples of an athletic motivated transfer are included in the rule. The rule only applies to transfer students who do NOT meet any of the stated exceptions for immediate eligibility and are ineligible for one semester under our basic transfer rule. They become ineligible for 180 scheduled school days if there is a finding that the transfer was more for athletics than any other compelling reason.

This effort has not been successful enough because it requires a school that loses a student to another school to promptly allege to the MHSAA office, with supporting documentation, that the transfer was more for athletic reasons than any other compelling reason. The receiving school then must respond to those allegations. Then the executive director makes the decision. The unfortunate result of applying this rule is that it usually causes hard feelings between the schools, and hard feelings toward the executive director by the school decided against. In 17 years, schools have invoked this rule only 41 times.

Our more recent effort to address the most egregious athletic transfers resulted from requests from the coaches associations for wrestling and basketball which were watching too many students change schools for athletic reasons, usually related to an out-of-season coaching relationship. The new rule – the "Athletic RELATED Transfer Rule" -- is Regulation I, Section 9(F). The difference between Section 9(E) and the newer Section 9(F) is that in 9(F) one school does not have to make and document allegations before staff can act. If MHSAA staff discover or are informed of any of the circumstances listed in 9(F), we can act. Again, the rule only applies to those transfer students whose circumstances do NOT meet one of the automatic exceptions. It applies only to students who are ineligible for a semester under the basic transfer rule. If there is a finding that one of the athletic related "links" exists (usually an out-of-season coaching relationship), then this transfer student who would be ineligible for one semester is made ineligible for 180 scheduled school days.

So far, it appears that 9(F) may be a better deterrent than 9(E). It has been referenced when students are rumored to be transferring, and it has stopped many of those transfers before they occur. 

We have said that if this latest effort does not succeed in slowing athletic transfers, then the next step is 180 days of ineligibility for all transfer students who do not qualify for an exception that permits immediate play. I fear that would catch far too many students who should not be withheld so long from competition and could lead to a period like the early 1980s when the MHSAA, at the request of the state principals association, adopted the core of the transfer rule we have today and which resulted in a period of busiest litigation for the MHSAA when, at one time, the association had more than a dozen cases in court simultaneously on transfer matters. We’ve got to make the current rules work.