Note: This memo is not "an agenda item"
formally on the Board's agenda. It is a memo about such an
item. -- NJ; October 27, 1998
Source: Board Member Nicholas Johnson
Action: Because the October 14, 1998, memo
leaves questions unanswered, unless persuaded to the contrary during Board
discussion I urge the further postponement of this item.
Questions
1. What do we know about the way in which other school districts
– here in Iowa and elsewhere -- handle this issue? Have we done this
survey research? Is there anything in the literature (hard copy or
Internet) that is useful?
2. Is this a matter as to which athletic associations
and conferences have an interest? If so, how does that impact on
our policy concerns? See, e.g., Beck v. Missouri State
High School Activities Ass’n, 837 F.Supp. 998 (E.D. Mo. 1993); ABC
League v. Missouri State High School Activities Ass’n, 530 F.Supp.
1033 (E.D. Mo. 1981); Simpkins v. South Dakota High School Activities
Ass’n, 434 N.W.2d 367 (S.D. 1989).
3. Are we to assume from the list of sports (i.e.,
golf, tennis, cross country, swimming, and soccer) that participation in
all other sports is wide open? If not, what are they, and what is
proposed to be the practice with regard to them?
4. Are the numbers listed applicable to a single high
school, or are they the total for both high schools?
5. Why were the numbers selected (i.e., a range
from 16 to 40)? Is there some magic in those numbers? What
would be the consequences of expanding them?
6. Accepting those numbers for the moment for the sake
of argument, what is their significance in terms of the proposed policy?
That is to say, had those numbers been in effect over the past three-to-five
year period, how many positions would have been available in each of those
sports for participants from other schools?
Issues
The issue involves both (a) students living within
the ICCSD, e.g., attending Regina, and (b) students living and going
to school in neighboring towns, geographically outside the District.
It involves both (a) programs with essentially unlimited
possible participation (e.g., one school I read about has 200 on
the cross country team!) about which there is little concern, and (b) programs
in which, for every "outsider" who makes the team some student from within
will be cut from the team. This seems to be the main problem.
Arguments for Unlimited Participation
The arguments for permitting other students to participate
are: (a) their parents are paying their full share of property taxes to
the schools (plus, of course, the Regina tuition), (b) the kids
are legally entitled to the entire ICCSD program, so (c) why shouldn't
they be able to participate in only a part? (Those living outside
the district don't have that argument – and yet their district does pay
us something.) (d) If they do exercise their right to enroll
in City or West, and make the team, they will, just as effectively, cause
a current team member to be cut. (So, making them transfer to accomplish
this result is a little bit "dog in the manger.") (e) To the extent
they are preparing for college athletics, they will have to compete with
out-of-state athletes. (f) All schools should want to field the best teams
possible.
Argument Against Unlimited Participation
The argument against their participation is primarily
emotional – but none the less real for all that. It involves a school’s
sense of identity, cohesiveness and pride; students who have gone to school
with each other, and participated in athletics, having to make room for
"strangers" who don’t even go to their school.
Conclusion
It’s a tough decision. Nothing’s obvious. I don’t
think we’ve done enough research, or know enough, to vote intelligently
at this point. But ultimately, I think, we just have to vote it up
or down.