Open enrollment, a Texas high school recruiting tool?

[mojotrain]

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.

I don't intend to prove a opinion. You can't prove a opinion until after the fact. It then becomes a fact that is history. My opinion is based on the tomorrow"s and who will win. Surely it will be those who will offer the greatest enticements.

Regarding link's. I worry about who provides links to those who provide links. I wonder if it's just another human with opinions or perhaps there is a master link some where out there. Perhaps it's a thought replacing machine that lives under the guise of "trust me", I'm the real final answer. I wonder if I sought out a link master, would it be the same as other people's link master's. Could there be link masters with opposing ideas or opinionated facts?.

[Super B]

I don't intend to prove a opinion. You can't prove a opinion until after the fact. It then becomes a fact that is history. My opinion is based on the tomorrow"s and who will win. Surely it will be those who will offer the greatest enticements.

Regarding link's. I worry about who provides links to those who provide links. I wonder if it's just another human with opinions or perhaps there is a master link some where out there. Perhaps it's a thought replacing machine that lives under the guise of "trust me", I'm the real final answer. I wonder if I sought out a link master, would it be the same as other people's link master's. Could there be link masters with opposing ideas or opinionated facts?.

Opinions are however based on the interpretation of facts. Saying the Earth is flat was a long held opinion. It was an understandable opinion based on the evidence they had to work with at the time. When a link comes directly from the source (the UIL) who sets the rules, that cannot be argued. When an opinion comes from the Deer Park ISD, that can be considered their interpretation of the facts.

[svhorns]

READ THE BOLDED AND BIG PART SUPER.

From the horses mouth, since you can not accept the fact that you're wrong Super B and you put everyone through this non sense of having to read your lazy put together rebuttals. I put it in big letters so that way you can focus and understand it.

http://www.uiltexas.org/files/consti...bchapter-m.pdf

Section 440: ELIGIBILITY - ATHLETICS Subject to the other sections of this subchapter, an individual is eligible to participate in a League varsity athletic contest as a representative of a participant school if that individual: (a) meets all the requirements of Section 400; (b) is a resident of the member school district (see Section 442), and a resident of the attendance zone in which the participant school being attended is situated, (1) Or has been continuously enrolled in and regularly attending the school for at least the previous calendar year if his or her parents do not reside within the school district’s attendance zone; see (5) (B) below for exception. Note: A student who has changed schools for athletic purposes may be declared ineligible for more than one calendar year. See Section 443 (f) (3).


If a student is accepted at an open enrollment school and lives outside of the attendance zone that student must complete one calender year before being allowed to play in varsity athletics. Hell, this pertains to any instance in which this case might happen. I have provided section 440 in the UIL subchapter ELIGIBILITY. I have also found this not only in the DPISD wesbite but several other district websites. Now if you would please move on from this MOST BLATANT FACT and discuss the topic at hand.

Open enrollment provides an option for a student who might have not previously had the option to attend a school outside of their attendance zone. And guess what? THEY CAN play varsity athletics.

Super, people might take you more serious if you didn't let your ego get in the way from a decent conversation. You were wrong, now move on.

[svhorns]

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

OH REALLY?!?!?

[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.

How is what you have said any different than this? That was post #16. A long time ago.

Also, this only applies to students transferring from Title I School Improvement schools to Open Enrollment schools with accredited programs. Are we in agreement here?

There really is no need to resort to rudeness and disrespectfulness and talking to me like I am a child just because you are frustrated.

[Super B]

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.

I want to make sure I understand you. This is your original post.

Please name names. Name specific schools and players where you have seen this happen as it specifically relates to Open Enrollment campuses.

Thx.

[Super B]

From the horses mouth, since you can not accept the fact that you're wrong Super B and you put everyone through this non sense of having to read your lazy put together rebuttals. I put it in big letters so that way you can focus and understand it.

http://www.uiltexas.org/files/consti...bchapter-m.pdf

Section 440: ELIGIBILITY - ATHLETICS Subject to the other sections of this subchapter, an individual is eligible to participate in a League varsity athletic contest as a representative of a participant school if that individual: (a) meets all the requirements of Section 400; (b) is a resident of the member school district (see Section 442), and a resident of the attendance zone in which the participant school being attended is situated, (1) Or has been continuously enrolled in and regularly attending the school for at least the previous calendar year IF his or her parents do not reside within the school district’s attendance zone; see (5) (B) below for exception. Note: A student who has changed schools for athletic purposes may be declared ineligible for more than one calendar year. See Section 443 (f) (3).

I highlighted the word IF. How many students will not be living with their parents?

Either way, having to sit out one year, which I always knew to be the case and is more or less common knowledge to most people that have looked into UIL transfer rules makes this a moot point once again.

[svhorns]

How is what you have said any different than this? That was post #16. A long time ago.

Also, this only applies to students transferring from Title I School Improvement schools to Open Enrollment schools with accredited programs. Are we in agreement here?

There really is no need to resort to rudeness and disrespectfulness and talking to me like I am a child just because you are frustrated.

This has nothing to do with open enrollment and playing varsity athletics, NCLB is completely different. So is transferring from poor performing schools. In fact post #16 didn't even need to be posted in this thread, way off course. If you would have found section 440 in Constitution and Contest Rules under the Subchapter titled Eligibility then cross referenced with district websites concerning open enrollment, then we'd be on the same page. The fact that you continue to defer the facts that I have put forth regarding open enrollment and participating in varsity athletics is completely senseless.

So not only were you deferring facts presented to you, you went on to say that that wasn't the original argument being had. According to you the original argument was whether or not open enrollment was responsible for 4 and 5 star players transferring schools, when I have not mentioned 4 and 5 star players once. I clearly saw that you stated in a post towards Mojotrain (post#31) that I was not providing facts, rather, I was only providing my interpretation of the facts, and only you were providing substantial facts.

When you continue to post without acknowledging facts that are correct and continue to cite facts and articles that are completely irrelevant to the discussion I'm not sure how you expect people to act without completely giving up in a one sided conversation.

[Super B]

You are a pot calling a kettle black. We have both posted facts.

In ANY circumstance a student transferring to a different school must sit out one year from varsity athletics. That is why this thread is a moot point.

I don't have time now. I'll explain it later.

[svhorns]

I highlighted the word IF. How many students will not be living with their parents?

Either way, having to sit out one year, which I always knew to be the case and is more or less common knowledge to most people that have looked into UIL transfer rules makes this a moot point once again.

What are you even talking about here? lol.

Go back to post 3 and read what you wrote. Read it until you've understood what you've wrote. Now understand you're arguing against your original statement. Now understand that I can not debate with you regarding this situation due to the fact you aren't even trying to comprehend what's going on in this discussion. Like I stated before and will continue to state, open enrollment can be used as a recruiting tool, the question is whether or not is it an effective recruiting tool.

Good lord man.

[svhorns]

You are a pot calling a kettle black. We have both posted facts.

In ANY circumstance a student transferring to a different school must sit out one year from varsity athletics. That is why this thread is a moot point.

I don't have time now. I'll explain it later.

Oh my jesus. That is another incorrect statement and you yourself have even pointed out why IN THIS THREAD! I can't anymore.



Lord help me.

[mojotrain]

sv you take over I got no links.

[svhorns]

You are a pot calling a kettle black. We have both posted facts.

In ANY circumstance a student transferring to a different school must sit out one year from varsity athletics. That is why this thread is a moot point.

I don't have time now. I'll explain it later.

I can post cat facts all day Super B. That doesn't mean you've posted facts relevant to the discussion which you are NOT doing.
1) A cat can reach up to five times its own height per jump.
2) According to the International Species Information Service, there are only three Marbled Cats still in existence worldwide. One lives in the United States
3) If your cat's eyes are closed, it's not necessarily because it's tired. A sign of closed eyes means your cat is happy or pleased.
4) Outdoor cats' lifespan averages at about 3 to 5 years; indoor cats have lives that last 16 years or more.


I have plenty more cat facts but I think I'll save them when you start to post more irrelevant UIL articles.

[svhorns]

sv you take over I got no links.

I'm letting Jesus take the wheel from here.

[Super B]

This is so funny.

[Super B]

The DEC (that stands for District Executive Committee) can approve transfers, but they cannot override the UIL residency rule. Districts (individual High Schools within those districts) are supposed to self police and self report. Obviously they do not always. If a complaint is made to the DEC, they will investigate and make a ruling. This pertains to ALL circumstances whether move in, inter-district or intra-district, closed or open enrollment school districts.

Do you disagree with any of that?

[svhorns]

Eating grass rids a cats' system of any fur and helps with digestion.

[svhorns]

While doing my research on this subject I didn't realize how many ISD's provide open enrollment programs but there's a lot more than I previously thought.

[Super B]

I applaud you SVHorns. I have been challenged by you and I have been forced to do my research and educate myself on this topic. I believe I was wrong about the residency requirement as it pertains to open enrollment districts. I am also pleased to announce that my being wrong on that detail does not change the most important thing I have said all along.

Okay. So here is why this thread is a moot point.

As has been proven and all has agreed, a student must sit out of varsity competition for one season. "has been continuously enrolled in and regularly attending the school for at least the previous calendar year". In fact, you pointed that out yourself in post #19 & #22 &#33, yet for some reason contradicted yourself in post #41.

The DEC (that stands for District Executive Committee) can approve transfers, but they cannot override the UIL residency rule. Districts (individual High Schools within those districts) are supposed to self police and self report. Obviously they do not always. If a complaint is made to the DEC, they will investigate and make a ruling.

This pertains to circumstances of move in, inter-district or intra-district, NOT open enrollment.

^^^^ This is the only way around sitting out a season of varsity athletics. However, the DEC or SEC can only make this exception for regular transfers (ie. a student whose family moves into a school attendance zone).

So actually there is an absolute guarantee a student will be sitting out a season of varsity athletics in an open enrollment case, whereas simply moving, like mom being hired by the school district to fill an open girls basketball coaching position and her son who happens to be a 300 lb four star lineman comes in tow COULD be overlooked or even approved by the DEC.

But in either case the default requirement is that the student athlete sits a year. Therefore there is no advantage to open enrollment from a student athlete perspective.

[svhorns]

I applaud you SVHorns. I have been challenged by you and I have been forced to do my research and educate myself on this topic. I believe I was wrong about the residency requirement as it pertains to open enrollment districts. I am also pleased to announce that my being wrong on that detail does not change the most important thing I have said all along.

Okay. So here is why this thread is a moot point.

As has been proven and all has agreed, a student must sit out of varsity competition for one season. "has been continuously enrolled in and regularly attending the school for at least the previous calendar year". In fact, you pointed that out yourself in post #19 & #22 &#33, yet for some reason contradicted yourself in post #41.

This pertains to circumstances of move in, inter-district or intra-district, NOT open enrollment.

^^^^ This is the only way around sitting out a season of varsity athletics. However, the DEC or SEC can only make this exception for regular transfers (ie. a student whose family moves into a school attendance zone).

So actually there is an absolute guarantee a student will be sitting out a season of varsity athletics in an open enrollment case, whereas simply moving, like mom being hired by the school district to fill an open girls basketball coaching position and her son who happens to be a 300 lb four star lineman comes in tow COULD be overlooked or even approved by the DEC.

But in either case the default requirement is that the student athlete sits a year. Therefore there is no advantage to open enrollment from a student athlete perspective.

I didnt contradict myself you said in ANY instance which is incorrect. Any in your case means all.

Whether it is an advantage as a recruiting tool, not sure, but it CAN be used as a recruiting tool. I stated an example already. Im not going to get into that argument becuase arguing about what families might or might not do is pointless.

[mojotrain]

Opinions are however based on the interpretation of facts. Saying the Earth is flat was a long held opinion. It was an understandable opinion based on the evidence they had to work with at the time. When a link comes directly from the source (the UIL) who sets the rules, that cannot be argued. When an opinion comes from the Deer Park ISD, that can be considered their interpretation of the facts.

It's still nothing more than an opinion. That's why the word opinion was invented. Had the word opinion not been invented we would just have facts. You ran out of debate material when you required links.

[Eagle82]

There's no doubt parents take advantage of this to move their little joey to a school who has the potential to go the farthest in the playoffs. Just another abuse of the system by parents.

Could you imagine if Abilene, Odessa or San Angelo had open enrollment and stud players from the lesser schools in those towns moved around to play at the better programs? You'd have all the honey boo boo momma's slinging words at the next board meeting!