Transfers 101
September 21, 2011
A recent blog (“Troubling Transfers”) brought us several responses where the writer had student-specific issues, to which we do not respond here. Questions about a particular pupil should first be addressed to the local school’s administration. If the school needs help with the answer or wishes to prepare a request for waiver, MHSAA staff is ready to help.
One writer sought a list of the 15 exceptions to the automatic ineligibility of a transferring student. Here are brief summaries (not the full rule):
Eight Residency Exceptions –
1. Student moves with the people he/she was living with previously (full & complete).
2. Student not living with parents moves back in with them.
3. Ward of the Court, placed with foster parents.
4. Foreign exchange student moves in with host family who resides in district. Two semesters/three trimesters only.
5. Married student moves into school district.
8. Student moves with or to divorced parent.
12. An 18-year-old moves without parents.
13. A student resides in a boarding school.
Five School Status Exceptions –
6. School ceases to operate, not merged.
7. School is reorganized or consolidated.
9. School board orders safety transfer or enrollment shift.
11. Student achieved highest grade available in former school.
15. New school established; student enrolled on first day.
Two Student Status Exceptions –
10. Incoming first-time 9th grader.
14. Expelled student returns under preexisting criteria.
In three cases (exceptions 8, 12 and 13), an Educational Transfer Form must be completed by administrators of both schools and the MHSAA before the student may participate.
In four cases (exceptions 2, 8, 12 and 13), the exception may only be utilized once by a student while enrolled in grades 9 through 12.
There is also a provision where a student may request a waiver at the subvarsity level for a 9th- or 10th-grade student who has never played any MHSAA tournament sport in high school.
I recognize this is all “un-bloglike,” but the topic of transfers brought some basic and general questions that we could answer here.
Leadership Road
May 22, 2015
Earlier this month, the small portion of Michigan voters who bothered to vote at all resoundingly rejected the so-called road fix – Proposal One. It was no surprise, and provides at least these two leadership lessons.
First, people expect their designated leaders to lead. From everything I’ve read, heard and felt personally, voters were upset that their elected officials could not or would not fix our state’s crumbling roads and bridges. They punted; and the voters punted the ball right back to the people they expect to have the wisdom and will to craft and compromise their way to workable solutions to tough problems.
The second lesson is that people expect straightforward solutions. Again, there is every indication that Proposal One was too complicated and a far more comprehensive package than people could comprehend. By trying to do more than fix roads and bridges, the proposal wasn’t able to get the support needed to do anything at all.
The creativity and courage to prepare and promote the most direct remedy for road repair is a top issue for the State of Michigan. Taxpayers of the state want their elected officials to run an offense to move the ball across the goal line, with little razzle-dazzle and no punts.
That’s the preferred and probably necessary approach for addressing the major problems of any enterprise, including ours.