Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SALT LAKE CITY — Offering students the freedom to choose any educational opportunities they want or need and trying to restrict the unfettered movement of high school athletes continues to be problematic for state officials.
A bill that sough to make it easier to transfer, and retain athletic eligibility, from one school to another unless recruiting or athletic intent could be proved, was held by the Senate Education Standing Committee Thursday morning.
Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in sponsoring SB53, he wanted to change the assumption that students were moving from one school to another for athletic reasons.
"This bill does not embrace the new policy of guilty until proven innocent," he said referring to the Utah High School Activities Association's newly implemented transfer rule. Instead, he said, officials should give students at least one transfer — no questions asked.
He added that if recruiting occurs — or if the transfer is "solely" for athletic purposes, then it would not be protected by the bill. Protecting the opportunity of students to explore and find educational situations that best fit their needs is the purpose of the bill.
And while two grandmothers who recently had a grandson participate in a hardship hearing, the president of Utah Charter Schools, The Sutherland Institute and the Utah Taxpayers Association spoke in favor of the bill, public school officials and the UHSAA spoke against it.
"I think, with the current policies in place, (students) have a choice," said Jerry Haslam, who is the Granger principal and former Taylorsville principal. "I applaud open enrollment; it makes me do my job. It makes me put in place all that's good for student in their education."
He said the new UHSAA rule does a better job at keeping the playing field level, while allowing students who need to transfer for non-athletic reasons to be heard through hardship hearings.
"This policy was just put in place," he said. "I think we can find (that middle ground) with this current policy."
Interestingly, Haslam was one of the principals who sat on the hearing panel of the boy spoken of by the two grandmothers.
"That was a case of true bullying and we did give him eligibility," Haslam said.
Matthew Piccolo, who represented the Sutherland Institute, said the new rule may punish students who have to transfer for academic reasons but also enjoy playing sports.
"It burdens them with a choice they should never have to make," he said. "Do I have to choose athletics or academics?"
Bart Thompson, associate director of the UHSAA, said one of the problems they have with the bill is the definition of recruiting.
SB 53 defines it as "solicitation or conversation initiated by an employee of a school or school district or a coach or advisor of an interscholastic activity."
"Most recruiting is done by boosters or parents," Thompson said. "Most transfers are not clear cut."
Also, he said, the words "solely athletics purposes" caused them concerns.
"We want to make some degree of natural parity," he said of trying to regulate transfers.
Part of the reason committee members held the bill was so they could discuss an amendment offered just after the bill was introduced Thursday morning. Some felt that middle ground between the two views could be found.
The amendment changed it from one transfer each school year to one in a student's high school career.
"This is a lot better than it used to be," said Thompson of the amendment. "But we know what we're already dealing with on first entry. This doubles those problems."
Many students report being approached or enticed by boosters or club coaches before they choose a high school. Current rules and state law allow a student to choose any high school with room for them and still be eligible for sports.
Madsen's bill, as amended, would allow parents to move to any school, for any reason, one additional time, if the student applies between December and June of the school year prior to enrolling.
Thompson said there were some benefits to Friday's discussion. He said the UHSAA has considered and is willing to further discuss a "return home exception." That would allow students to return to their home boundary school at any time without penalty.
"We think this is an issue we should deal with through our system rather than legislatively," said Thompson. "Rep. Laura Black came to us about background checks for officials and we're now doing that — without a law."
Advocates of the change acknowledged recruiting is a real issue, but they hope to balance that with the desire by many parents to have more choice in choosing schools.
e-mail: adonaldson@desnews.com Twitter: ADonsports
