IHSA eligibility

[doc]

Feb 8, 2010 8:37:30 GMT -5 gatordog said:

To further this discussion on what the new rules mean for the future, let me post all these rules together.

Background:
3.0000 is Athletic Eligiblitity By-laws
3.030 is Residence requiremements
Ref at www.ihsa.org/org/policy/2009-10/section3.pdf
I added revisions words in blue below.

Here is the specific residency requirment:

3.030 RESIDENCE
A student’s eligibility is contingent upon the student meeting the applicable criteria from Sections 3.031-3.034 below. Except as provided in Section 6.010 of these by-laws, a student who does not comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 3.031-3.034 of these by-laws shall be ineligible for a period not to exceed 365 days. 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.

3.031 Public School Students: Students attending public member schools shall be eligible at the public high school in which
they enroll, provided:

New for 2010-11, 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

3.031.2 They reside full time with their parents, custodial parent or guardian appointed by a judge of a court having proper jurisdiction, and have attended a minimum of the seventh and eighth grades as tuition-paying non-resident students in the district in which the high school they attend is located.

New for 2010-11,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.

3.031.4 In all other cases, students shall not participate until a ruling on their eligibility is made by the Executive
Director.

it is not an either or propostion - call the director of IHSA as that is the only way anyone is going to believe the rules ... the kids who attended a HS within 204 last semester ( read this semester for effective fate July) - with approval of the district will absolutely be eligible to continue to play and will not have to 'move' back to school in their boundary area to do so.
It is back-door grandfathering

From here forward that door is shut..by the IHSA instead of the school district. ( IHSA holding the approval card for exceptions, not the SD )

[gatordog]

Feb 8, 2010 15:13:42 GMT -5 doc said:

.....
it is not an either or propostion - call the director of IHSA as that is the only way anyone is going to believe the rules ... )

doc, I am just trying to have a discussion. I dont want to make this a matter of belief, but rather one of understanding. Thats what we try to do on message boards! Seriously, I am not trying to win a debate, but figure out what this means. I appreciate you experience and knowledge on these matters.

When I look at the pdf
www.ihsa.org/org/policy/2009-10/section3.pdf

The clause you are pointing out and trying to apply
"(2) they attended that member school the previous school term." ONLY applies to rule 3.031.3, which is the broken family scenario. (that is the way I see it)

There are three residency situations described for public school.
3.031.1: the straightforward case of living with legal parents/guardians in the attendance area of the HS
3.031.2; living outside of the boundaries but paying tuition to go to public school
3.031.3 As mentioned above, the broken family case I call it.

Only one applies.

[gatordog]

This is interesting. There is an explicit grandfathering for seniors. If you are a jr and move, and meet the criteria below, you can stay eligible at your original HS for your senior year.

3.034.2 Students who have attended one school for their entire high school career and whose parents, custodial parent
or court appointed guardian moves from the district or community traditionally served by that school following
the student’s completion of the eleventh (11th) grade, may remain in that member school and retain
eligibility regarding residence for the twelfth (12th) grade, provided:

1. The student, if not yet eighteen (18) years of age, resides full time with the parents, a custodial parent, a
non-custodial birth parent or a court appointed legal guardian; or the student, if eighteen (18) years of
age, continues to reside with parents, custodial parent, a non-custodial birth parent or a court appointed
legal guardian, or is accepted for enrollment by the school as a student having reached the age of majority
under the laws of the State of Illinois; and,

2. Such attendance is approved by the Board of Education or local governing board of the school; and,

3. There is no evidence of undue influence, including but not limited to inducement, remuneration, pressure,
promise or provision of special benefits or any other form of encouragement or persuasion, on the
part of any person(s) directly or indirectly connected to the school, to retain the student’s attendance.

[gatordog]

Feb 8, 2010 15:13:42 GMT -5 doc said:

.....

From here forward that door is shut..by the IHSA instead of the school district. ( IHSA holding the approval card for exceptions, not the SD )

Yes. This is the key point. And its more specific than IHSA holding the approval card....IHSA explicity says what they require: Students in the future have IHSA eligiblity defined by their residence's attendance area of high school.

So, I imagine in the future, starting next year, students requesting HS exceptions will be reminded by school administrators that they will be ineligible for HS sports, and administrator's will point to the bylaw 3.031.

But lets remember, attendance area exceptions are about some hardship of medical or special needs; they are not about sports. And the IHSA is making sure that is indeed the case.

Thanks again, doc, for pointing out this bylaw change.

[educateme]

Feb 9, 2010 15:09:24 GMT -5 gatordog said:

Feb 8, 2010 15:13:42 GMT -5 doc said:

.....

From here forward that door is shut..by the IHSA instead of the school district. ( IHSA holding the approval card for exceptions, not the SD )

Yes. This is the key point. And its more specific than IHSA holding the approval card....IHSA explicity says what they require: Students in the future have IHSA eligiblity defined by their residence's attendance area of high school.

So, I imagine in the future, starting next year, students requesting HS exceptions will be reminded by school administrators that they will be ineligible for HS sports, and administrator's will point to the bylaw 3.031.

But lets remember, attendance area exceptions are about some hardship of medical or special needs; they are not about sports. And the IHSA is making sure that is indeed the case.

Thanks again, doc, for pointing out this bylaw change.

I applaud IHSA for taking this stance. I just hope they hold to it. It is common sense... if the child has some "medical reason" that prevents them from attending the school within the boudaries defined by the school district, then wouldn't those same "medical reasons" prevent these children from participating in athletics to the full extent? If these children are not "well" enough to attend a school roughly 7 - 10 minutes from their homes (the length of time it takes us to get our child from our TG home to WV), how are they "well" enough to travel to other schools to compete and keep the long practice hours?

I hope that IHSA does take a hard position on this. I also hope that those who made up bogus illnesses for their children and then had quack doctors sign off on it find themselves called out on it by having these children become ineligible. It would be a great life lesson for the kids. Even though your parents lied and think it is ok, it isn't and here's why.

[gatordog]

Feb 11, 2010 10:42:31 GMT -5 educateme said:

....


I applaud IHSA for taking this stance. I just hope they hold to it. It is common sense...

Welcome, educateme!

Yes, I think common sense is a good way to describe it. I think it would be virtually impossible for the IHSA not to hold to it, since it is so explicitly written now.

I hope that IHSA does take a hard position on this. I also hope that those who made up bogus illnesses for their children and then had quack doctors sign off on it find themselves called out on it by having these children become ineligible.

I think those Frosh and Sophs who did get exceptions and do play sports, that they should be grandfathered. I think decisions made in the past should be allowed to stand. I think that is the fair thing to do.

I know doc and others say that the rules already do call for such grandfathering. (And this may well be the case, but I just found it a little hard to follow, which suggests its not very explicit at all.).

For me, my course of action ("playing it safe") would be to recognize that since the new 3.031.1 requirements are not met, these students should go before the Executive Director and get special eligiblity granted to them by way of 3.031.4. And I think the SD should actively support them in this request. (unless there is some very very clear cut evidence for some falsifications, which I hope is very rare. And I would trust the judgement of the Executive Director if that were the case )