Open enrollment, a Texas high school recruiting tool?

[mojotrain]

Some say it's purpose is for purely academic reasons, that the fact that four/five star athletes show up on campus is no more that a un-intended consequence. There are so many ways to look at this I felt the topic deserved it's own legs. I'm 100% against open borders unless it's a rule that encompasses all schools. As is, some school districts will push the envelope and a weak UIL will turn a blind eye. The rest will try to obey a rule that, again the same weak UIL won't police..Today it's a loophole, one that should be shut or it should deemed ok to any district who wants to compete. I use the word compete meaning a even chance at a SC. At the very least the UIL should lump the schools with open borders and privates into a class of their own.

[CHill]

Cedar Hill just went to the open school format for academic reasons. They have expanded their colliegiate studies for elementary and middle school age groups. With the private schools dotting the area and their tutions, those students can now have a choice for the same education for a lot cheaper cost. The student and they're family has to submit an application to attend and there is an interview process. If that student has had a history of disciplinary issues they will be denied acceptance to the program.

It seems that you have starting a thread that has been run into into the ground about the UIL and the open school format. No disrespect, but the last thing CHill needs are football players, there are 275 of them from grades 9-12 Seems you're issue is with the UIL more so the open school district. If one wants changes, they need to voice there concerns to the UIL.

[Super B]

To participate is UIL activities a student must still live within the schools attendance zone.

[mojotrain]

Cedar Hill just went to the open school format for academic reasons. They have expanded their colliegiate studies for elementary and middle school age groups. With the private schools dotting the area and their tutions, those students can now have a choice for the same education for a lot cheaper cost. The student and they're family has to submit an application to attend and there is an interview process. If that student has had a history of disciplinary issues they will be denied acceptance to the program.

It seems that you have starting a thread that has been run into into the ground about the UIL and the open school format. No disrespect, but the last thing CHill needs are football players, there are 275 of them from grades 9-12 Seems you're issue is with the UIL more so the open school district. If one wants changes, they need to voice there concerns to the UIL.

My talking point directly involves the UIL If that's not clear in my post I've failed. If Cedar Hill has failed in the education of their children then moves should be made to correct that failure. I don't see how bringing in "presumed" smarter kids from outside corrects the failure. They will still connect and be led by those responsible for what you say is a failure. I see no plus in trying to make a school relative in sports or education by bringing in better materials. I would suggest replacing the foundation. I suppose the school board of CHILL has a backup plan in case the football team gets better and the smartness of the students remains no better than what it is today. Would we throw away the baby and keep the dish water?

And no respect to you but to me it doesn't matter how many football players you have. A open door, a loop hole that allows for more, should by any measurement make for a better team. Whether recruiting under the pretense of education or for sports, results are the same, they go hand in hand. One thing certain any coach who can't play in the final game with those odds is wasting someone else's money. If it makes sense to you, a school with 2000-3000 boys to build a team with should beat a team from a school who has 1000 boys to pick from. That's the reason we have multi- class championships.

In your favor the UIL by sticking there head in the sand and perhaps even the majority of fans in Texas lean to your side. And if that's the way it officially turns I'll jump on board. The Permian Basin could definitely get into some of that..

[svhorns]

To participate is UIL activities a student must still live within the schools attendance zone.

Not according to eagle2. Unless I misread his posts.

[mojotrain]

I wouldn't expect a student from Amarillo listing a Amarillo address to play in D/FW. I'm sure they would show a D/FW address.

[mojotrain]

Here's how this thing grew. Perhaps before the 50's and 60's the only out of state teams that could compete, not beat but compete with the best of Texas teams where in Florida, Ohio and California. And those by and large were private schools who did recruit, as in schools without boundary's. Look it Up! As posted earlier that cost money, too much money for the public school systems. Wolla! necessity is in fact the mother of invention. The necessity in this case was to not just win but to win against the top school boys in the nation. That clearly was Texas. Border lines made this task impossible,simple solution was to take away borders. The losers in this practice are a school who loses their top player to open borders, we won't consider his old schools plight for now.

Those states now have caught up, some have passed us or think they have. We'll soon see. Now we try to copy those who once copied us.

[Super B]

Not according to eagle2. Unless I misread his posts.

We have been over this many times. That is what the UIL rules state.

[svhorns]

We have been over this many times. That is what the UIL rules state.

Can you post the uil rule so we can all be on the same page? As much as I love to take people on their word, we're living in crazy times right now.

[mojotrain]

Look, I would have no problem interpreting open borders as a way of enticement rather than recruiting. It just seems like jumping into something in the middle. Normal pathways to building something better is first to recruit by offering something better, for greater rewards. I could consider that enticement. an agreement in kind saying I might make you better if you can make me better. Colleges and private's do it all the time. If it takes the edge off I'll call it enticement.

[Super B]

Can you post the uil rule so we can all be on the same page? As much as I love to take people on their word, we're living in crazy times right now.

So actually I was partially wrong. The requirement to live inside the school attendance zone boundaries only applies to athletic contest.

https://www.uiltexas.org/policy/eligibility

UIL Eligibility Standards

The sole purpose of eligibility rules and contest regulations is to keep competition equitable and to maintain activities in proper perspective. It is the responsibility of each school to see that students do not compete unless they comply with all eligibility rules. It is also the responsibility of the student to observe and obey these standards. According to UIL standards, students are eligible to represent their school in interscholastic activities if they:

have not graduated from high school,
are full-time, day students in the school, and have been in regular attendance at the school since the 6th class day of the present school year, or have been in regular attendance for 15 or more calendar days before the contest or competition,
are in compliance with state law and rules of the Commissioner of Education, (see TEA-UIL Side By Side)
are enrolled in a four year, normal program of high school courses, and initially enrolled in the 9th grade not more than 4 years ago nor in the 10th grade not more than 3 years ago,
were not recruited,
are not in violation of the awards rule, and
meet the specific eligibility requirements for academic, music and/or athletic competition.

Eligibility for Athletic Contests:

meet all the requirements above,
are less than 19 years old on September 1 preceding the contest or have been granted eligibility based on a disability that delayed their education by at least one year,
live with their parents inside the school district attendance zone their first year of attendance (see your school administrator for exceptions),
have not moved or changed schools for athletic purposes,
have not violated the athletic amateur rule, and
were eligible according to the fifteen day rule and the residence rule prior to district certification.

(Schools may adopt stricter standards for eligibility to participate in extracurricular activities.)

[Super B]

With that ^^^^ being said, it kind of makes this thread a moot point.

[svhorns]

So actually I was partially wrong. The requirement to live inside the school attendance zone boundaries only applies to athletic contest.

https://www.uiltexas.org/policy/eligibility

UIL Eligibility Standards

The sole purpose of eligibility rules and contest regulations is to keep competition equitable and to maintain activities in proper perspective. It is the responsibility of each school to see that students do not compete unless they comply with all eligibility rules. It is also the responsibility of the student to observe and obey these standards. According to UIL standards, students are eligible to represent their school in interscholastic activities if they:

have not graduated from high school,
are full-time, day students in the school, and have been in regular attendance at the school since the 6th class day of the present school year, or have been in regular attendance for 15 or more calendar days before the contest or competition,
are in compliance with state law and rules of the Commissioner of Education, (see TEA-UIL Side By Side)
are enrolled in a four year, normal program of high school courses, and initially enrolled in the 9th grade not more than 4 years ago nor in the 10th grade not more than 3 years ago,
were not recruited,
are not in violation of the awards rule, and
meet the specific eligibility requirements for academic, music and/or athletic competition.

Eligibility for Athletic Contests:

meet all the requirements above,
are less than 19 years old on September 1 preceding the contest or have been granted eligibility based on a disability that delayed their education by at least one year,
live with their parents inside the school district attendance zone their first year of attendance (see your school administrator for exceptions),
have not moved or changed schools for athletic purposes,
have not violated the athletic amateur rule, and
were eligible according to the fifteen day rule and the residence rule prior to district certification.

(Schools may adopt stricter standards for eligibility to participate in extracurricular activities.)

Yes, I know you must live within the attendance zone to play at a school. I've went through the transfer process myself. You posted the obvious rule that everyone knows regarding attendance zones and participating in athletic contests, but I do see exceptions can be made as well.

[svhorns]

Here's a quote from Eagle2, who seems to be the most informed on this particular subject. He doesnt state that athletic events are restricted for students who are in the open enrollment program. If they are ineligible I'm not sure why he wouldn't say so with a definitive answer just as you are.

First and foremost this is for academics. So criteria is what type of student are we getting? How are the grades and behavior? What courses or path is student seeking?(classes are not crowded) Some students and parents are interviewed. Most students going this route are seeking academics rather than extra curricular. The fact that a student participates in extra curricular especially in sports and they are good is just an added benefit for that school. Also state law allows parents and students to choose a school of choice if their home (boundary)school is a low performing school.

[Super B]

Here's a quote from Eagle82, who seems to be the most informed on this particular subject. He doesnt state that athletic events are restricted for students who are in the open enrollment program. If they are ineligible I'm not sure why he wouldn't say so with a definitive answer just as you are.

NCLB applies in very few cases. Well, not to say there are few schools on the list. But to say there are few schools that have high impact athletes transferring. D1 caliber football players.

https://www.uiltexas.org/policy/info/no-child-left-behind

Did not apply to Kyler Murray. Did not apply to Seth Green. Did not apply to David Feliciano. Did not apply to Jaylin Nelson. On and on and on.

The only time that applies is if the athlete is transfer from a school Identified as a Title I School Improvement schools. Here is the complete list. http://tea.texas.gov/Student_Testing...ority_Schools/

http://tea.texas.gov/Student_Testing_and_Accountability/Monitoring_and_Interventions/School_Improvement_and_Support/2013-2014_Focus_Schools/

Lewisville is not on the list. DeSoto is not on the list. Cedar Hill is not on the list. Carter is not on the list. Skyline, Kimbal, Guyer, Allen, ... are not on the list.

[Super B]

Furthermore.

https://www.uiltexas.org/policy/info/no-child-left-behind

No Child Left Behind - AYP Transfers and Varsity Athletic Eligibility

NCLB provisions allow students who attend schools identified as in Title I School Improvement, for failing to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for consecutive years, to transfer to a school that is not in Title I School Improvement.

Below, UIL provides information on the transfer provisions of NCLB and the criteria that will determine a student’s eligibility for varsity athletic participation at the new school subsequent to the transfer. Eligibility for UIL activities other than varsity athletics should not be in question as the residence rule only applies to varsity athletic participation. Individuals participating in UIL activities, other than athletics, must comply with section 400 of the Constitution and Contest Rules.

Students and parents of athletes choosing to transfer under NCLB provisions should be aware of some specifics regarding to eligibility for varsity athletics:
First, the provisions of the Previous Athletic Participation Form will apply. The local District Executive Committee may rule a student, who is determined to have changed schools for athletic purposes, ineligible for participation.

Second, the provisions of the fifteen (15) day rule still apply for varsity participation.
Third, students who choose this transfer option and take their varsity athletic eligibility with them to the new school would be ineligible for varsity athletic participation should they subsequently choose to change to another school within that same ISD, even if they return to their home school (school of the residence of the parents).
Should questions arise surrounding the following interpretation of the transfer provisions of NCLB and eligibility criteria for UIL participation, please direct them to the UIL staff.

According to UIL interpretation of eligibility in reference to NCLB transfers:
A student who transfers, from a campus identified as in Title I School Improvement for failing to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), to a new school, which is not in Title I School Improvement, may be eligible for varsity participation according to the UIL residence rule (Section 440 b) provided the student is in compliance with the following provisions:
The transfer is to another campus within the same school district and complies with the conditions cited in information from the Texas Education Agency (TEA), available from the school. Campuses in School Improvement are required to notify parents in writing of that status.
The student transferred, at their first opportunity, from the School Improvement campus (Stage 1) to a campus within the same ISD that is not in school improvement. “First opportunity" is defined as within 30 days of the district first notifying parents in writing as required under NCLB. Contact UIL for specific eligibility information if the school is listed as Stage 2 or higher as this could also effect the definition of “first opportunity.”
The Previous Athletic Participation Form (if necessary) is completed and the UIL District Executive Committee finds the student did not change schools for athletic purposes.
The student complies with the 15-day rule for varsity participation.
The student is in compliance with any local ISD transfer and admission policies.
School officials at the campus that is not in School Improvement shall inform students who are eligible for varsity athletics their first year after transferring from a School Improvement campus that, if they later elect to transfer to another school (even the home school), they will be ineligible for varsity athletic participation at the school to which they transfer for at least one calendar year. We recommend written notification to student and their parents on this issue.

-----END-----

So, according to this a student may still be eligible for Varsity athletics without the residency requirement IF they are transferring to a different High School IN THE SAME ISD.

[svhorns]

Ok now find something of the such pertaining to open enrollment schools. I understand the poor performing transfer provisions, they've been around. I would like to see something written by the UIL stating that if a child is attending an open enrollment school and they live outside of the schools attendance zone he or she is not eligible to participate in UIL athletic events. I would imagine the UIL would want to shut down any loopholes that might present itself as more options are becoming available to children to attend different schools outside of their zone.

[Super B]

It is hard for me to prove a negative. Perhaps Mojotrain can find some proof that what he is writing about is real. I am the only one in this thread that has provided links and documented proof that what I am saying is accurate. I am not going to chase my tail on this.

[svhorns]

This is the best I can find.

http://www.dpisd.org/cms/lib4/TX0100...April_2013.pdf

My child participates in University Interscholastic League (U.I.L.) activities at his current school. Will he be eligible to continue participating in Deer Park?

Students who participate in U.I.L. academic and music events such as debate, band or orchestra will be immediately eligible to participate in those same events in DPISD (as long as the student is eligible under U.I.L. general eligibility requirements). However, non-resident students participating in varsity athletics must be enrolled in DPISD for the entire previous calendar year before they may compete (this rule does not apply to junior varsity and lower teams, which are considered sub-varsity teams).

The way I'm understanding the bolded part is if a student is enrolled in the Deer Park Open enrollment program he would be allowed to play varsity athletics but must sit out one full year. By attending the Deer Park open enrollment program the student would be considered enrolled in DPISD. Everything mentioned in the link I posted is assuming that the child lives out of the DPISD attendance zone. Nowhere does it state he or she will not be eligible to participate because the student resides out of the attendance zone.

[svhorns]

Now the question. Is the eligibility requirement set forth by DPISD standard across all ISD's or is this varsity eligibility requirement strictly for DPISD?

[svhorns]

It is hard for me to prove a negative. Perhaps Mojotrain can find some proof that what he is writing about is real. I am the only one in this thread that has provided links and documented proof that what I am saying is accurate. I am not going to chase my tail on this.

You've documented proof that students must live in the attendance zone to participate in varsity athletics for normal schooling situations and proof that students are eligible to play varsity athletics at a school from outside of thats school attendance zone if the school they are transferring from is considered a poor performing school, but you failed to provide proof on the subject at hand, which is open enrollment schools and varsity athletics. The context of your documentations may be accurate but your documentations were used incorrectly.

[svhorns]

So let me set forth an example. Johnny lives in Lucas and attends Lovejoy High School. Johnny made varsity as a freshman so he's a decent player. It's not as great as making varsity at Allen as a freshman but it's still a great accomplishment and Johnny is probably a pretty good player. Johnny's parents say "our Johnny is a good football player maybe we should put him somewhere where there's better competition." Coach McGuire over at Cedar Hill catches wind of good ole Johnny and gets in contact with his parents. Coach McGuire says "We'd love to have Johnny on our football team but he can't play varsity until his junior year, he can play on JV so he can get accustomed to our system, but guess what Mr and Mrs. Johnny's parents, you can continue to live in Lucas while Johnny attends Cedar Hill!"

[Super B]

You have not proven anything actually. I never focused on sitting out a year. However that is common knowledge and applies in all cases. It is a very effective deterrent IF ENFORCED.

Throughout the recent history of this discussion (over three different forums going back to 2012), those angry and complaining about the Murray transfer has always said Murray should have been required to sit out a year from varsity. Had he done that, there would have been no issue.

Bottom line is, using open enrollment as a recruiting tool for big time D1 level athletes simply does not work intra-district. No athlete is going to want to sit for a season.

[mojotrain]

It is hard for me to prove a negative. Perhaps Mojotrain can find some proof that what he is writing about is real. I am the only one in this thread that has provided links and documented proof that what I am saying is accurate. I am not going to chase my tail on this.

My facts are clear. I don't assume that some schools have open borders, that is fact. I don't assume that open borders enhance sports teams intended or not, that is also fact. It's my opinion that open borders is a practice of, I'll give you something if you will give me something. It's my opinion that recruiting is the practice of I'll give you something if you will give me something. For the meaning of recruiting and/or enticement my link would be the Webster's dictionary.

[svhorns]

You have not proven anything actually. I never focused on sitting out a year. However that is common knowledge and applies in all cases. It is a very effective deterrent IF ENFORCED.

Throughout the recent history of this discussion (over three different forums going back to 2012), those angry and complaining about the Murray transfer has always said Murray should have been required to sit out a year from varsity. Had he done that, there would have been no issue.

Bottom line is, using open enrollment as a recruiting tool for big time D1 level athletes simply does not work intra-district. No athlete is going to want to sit for a season.

What do you mean I didnt prove anything? I just proved that you ARE allowed to play varsity athletic sports while attending an open enrollment program while living outside of the attendance zone. In which case I just proved you wrong. Please see your posts 3,8, and 12 stating otherwise. You've delivered incorrect information 3 times trying to discredit others arguments.

Whether it is an effective recruiting tool will remain to be seen because the example I set forth is very plausible.

Who cares about the Murray transfer in this thread, that is irrelevant here. You keep going into other subjects. Stay on course and follow me here.

Now your stating this is only for D1 athletes? This thread isnt titled "Is open enrollment a form of recruiting D1 athletes specifically"

[Super B]

My facts are clear. I don't assume that some schools have open borders, that is fact. I don't assume that open borders enhance sports teams intended or not, that is also fact. It's my opinion that open borders is a practice of, I'll give you something if you will give me something. It's my opinion that recruiting is the practice of I'll give you something if you will give me something. For the meaning of recruiting and/or enticement my link would be the Webster's dictionary.

You have done zero to prove your opinion. Completely unsupported by fact.

None of the kids we get so up in arms about, like the few I mentioned above got to their new school via open enrollment. They simply "moved" into their new schools attendance zone.

[Super B]

What do you mean I didnt prove anything? I just proved that you ARE allowed to play varsity athletic sports while attending an open enrollment program while living outside of the attendance zone. In which case I just proved you wrong. Please see your posts 3,8, and 12 stating otherwise. You've delivered incorrect information 3 times trying to discredit others arguments.

Whether it is an effective recruiting tool will remain to be seen because the example I set forth is very plausible.

Who cares about the Murray transfer in this thread, that is irrelevant here. You keep going into other subjects. Stay on course and follow me here.

Now your stating this is only for D1 athletes? This thread isnt titled "Is open enrollment a form of recruiting D1 athletes specifically"

If the OP premise is that open enrollment is a recruiting tool, I have discredited that.

[svhorns]

If the OP premise is that open enrollment is a recruiting tool, I have discredited that.

Lets make sure were on the same page here Super. Are you allowed to play varsity athletics outside of your attendance zone if you attend an open enrollment program?

[svhorns]

I'll answer it for you Super. Yes, you are allowed to play in varsity athletic events if you live outside the attendance zone while attending an open enrollment program. I first had to argue that your posts shown below were incorrect in regards to kids playing varsity athletics outside of the schools attendance zone while participating in the open enrollment program . Now that we've realized that your argument that students who live outside the attedance zone while participating in an open enrollment are not eligible for varsity athletic events is wrong, lets move on to the original topic now that everyone has the CORRECT information.

To participate is UIL activities a student must still live within the schools attendance zone.

We have been over this many times. That is what the UIL rules state.

With that ^^^^ being said, it kind of makes this thread a moot point.

[svhorns]

Now that this thread does hold a MOOT POINT based on the correct information provided by me and not the incorrect information provided by super B regarding kids being eligible to play in varsity athletics while participating in open enrollment program, I believe it CAN be used as a recruiting tool. Whether or not open enrollment can be an effective recruiting tool is another question. There are no facts that can be used to dispel the notion that it is not effective, especially not from documents and rules coming for the UIL.