No Child Left Behind

[cw160]

Sorry.

Edited September 21, 2004 by cw160

[cw160]

Maybe I just don't grasp the complexity of the NCLB. If the school does not pass the NCLB rules why would you want to send your child there anyway?

Who penalizes a child for attending a school that doesn't pass the rules? TSSAA doesn't penaiize the school. There are lots of schools with merit finalists and a number that have none. That doesn't stop a school from suiting up on Friday night.

[Black&Blue]

according to TSSAA "A student who engages in three or more days of practice - including spring practice - with a high school in which he or she is enrolled shall be ineligible in that sport for 12 months if the student enrolls in another school without a corresponding change in the residence of his or her parents." Clearly a transfer because of nclb would be in violation of this regulation. NCLB clearly states these student will be allowed to transfer "without penalty". Will this federal mandate supercede TSSAA or will the state of Tn risk losing federal funding to preserve Tssaa's  God- given right to govern high school athletics?

825332377[/snapback]

 

I do believe that the TSSAA has made an error in their eligibilty bylaws. In the summary of TSSAA Eligibility Rules, the above " shall be ineligible IN THAT SPORT for 12 months if the student enrolls in another school without a corresponding change in the residence of his or her parents" does appear as that is written. The way this reads says that if you participate in basketball at your former school, you can still play other sports except basketball for 12 months at the students new school.

 

However, in the TSSAA handbook under the bylaws, (I can't quote it because the web site doesn't come up) it states that if you practice more than three practices at your former school and you transfer to your new school, you are ineligible for the remainder of THAT YEAR. Does it make you eligible the following year and do you have to wait 12 months? It also complicates the matter by saying that if you play basketball, it also makes you ineligible in football, baseball and girls softball.

 

If you play girls soccer, volleyball, tennis, bowling and some other sports mentioned, then you are only ineligible in the sport you participated in as stated in the above quote. This can be very misleading and confusing. If the TSSAA governs all these sports, shouldn't there be one set of rules on eligiblity? And if not, is it discriminitory when you consider the demographics of the participants of those sports in question?

[Bighurt]

The 12-month rule covers all sports. Not just the sport(s) in which the student participated.

 

barb and cw160 do raise interesting issues.

[silverpie]

The 12-month rule covers all sports.  Not just the sport(s) in which the student participated.

 

barb and cw160 do raise interesting issues.

825348910[/snapback]

 

Actually, it depends on which sport the record is in. If it's in a major sport (football, basketball, baseball/softball, or track), the sitout applies in all major sports. If it's in a minor sport (anything else), it's limited to that sport.

[Black&Blue]

The 12-month rule covers all sports.  Not just the sport(s) in which the student participated.

 

barb and cw160 do raise interesting issues.

825348910[/snapback]

 

 

Not according to the by-laws. It depends on what sports you participate in. Furthermore, the eligibility rules read differently depending on where you go on the web site.

 

Page 15, section 13 states if you play football, basketball, baseball, track or softball- You are ineligible for those 5 sports even if you only played one for 12 months. In the same section it states that if you participate in tennis, girls volleyball, girls soccer, cross country, golf, or bowling you are only ineligible for the sport that you played in for 12 months.

Page 18, section 19 addressess practice rules in the same manner as above and also says the opposite of what is stated in the eligibility guidelines in reference to practicing "in that particular sport".

[Bighurt]

I stand corrected.

[VolunteerGeneral]

Well you need to sit down and be quiet.

[Bighurt]

Will do. I always listen to my elders.

[jimbo44]

I think that, if the school doesn't measure up in academics a kid should be able to transfer without penalty, in all facets of their highschool experience.

It's sad, but the courts will decide.

Edited September 22, 2004 by jimbo44

[ELA]

I asked someone at the TSSAA and they suggested that all of their rules still apply unless the transfer is made within the same district. The Supreme Court has already ruled three times that sports are extra-curricular activities and there is no constitutional protection to a "right to play" {don't confuse this with the BA vs TSSAA because that was a question of freedom of speech and had nothing to do with athletic competition from the high courts position}.

Edited September 22, 2004 by ELA

[Black&Blue]

I asked someone at the TSSAA and they suggested that all of their rules still apply unless the transfer is made within the same district. The Supreme Court has already ruled three times that sports are extra-curricular activities and there is no constitutional protection to a "right to play" {don't confuse this with the BA vs TSSAA because that was a question of freedom of speech and had nothing to do with athletic competition from the high courts position}.

825350949[/snapback]

 

It is so strange. The courts still view sports as "extra cirricular". Athletic scholarships have become more commonplace than academic scholarships. Our country is fascinated with sports and most of today's youth aspire at a young age to pursue careers as professional atheletes. (Until the harsh reality hits only a few realize that goal.) Still the courts refuse to recognize that pursuing a career in athletics is not a right and is relatively insignificant.

 

On the other hand, the TSSAA would if they could install tracking devices in athletes to keep up with every move they make to make sure they abide by the rules. God forbid a 14 year old athlete changes schools to play on a better team or just wants a change of atmosphere. The whole free world would crumble. If it is so meaningless and insignificant to the supreme court, why would any of the TSSAA rules that are challenged stand up? The BA case is about freedom of speech but doesn't the transfer situation interfere with the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness" part of the Constitution? Just an observation.