Board approves athlete transfer policy without path for implementation
File photo
Despite having no recommendation to do so from its policy committee, legal advice outlining the complications of such a move, opposition from principals at both high schools and calls for caution from several board members, Haywood County’s school board decided to enact a policy that will require students who transfer from one high school to another to be ineligible for athletics for one full year.
The action was taken at least partially under the assumption that this would align Haywood County Schools with the policy of both the North Carolina High School Athletic Association (NCHSAA), as well as that of 108 out of 115 school districts across the state. But that assumption turned out to be far from reality. Districts across the state are almost evenly split when it comes to athletic eligibility rules.
After passing the policy by a 5-3 vote Dec. 9, the board held a work session Dec. 12 to flesh out important aspects of the policy like exemptions for the new rule and what the appeals process would look like, only to conclude that changing the policy would be as complicated as some had initially warned.
At the end of last week’s work session, the board decided to send the policy change to the policy committee for review and recommendations.
In the meantime, any students transferring schools under pupil reassignment will be automatically ineligible for athletic participation for 365 days.
THE POLICY CHANGE
The change concerns policy 3620-R and eliminates the section that allows students who transfer schools via pupil reassignment to be eligible to participate in athletics immediately.
Related Items
HCS considers change to student athlete transfer policy
Green wins race for superintendent of NC schools
Macon votes no, again, to quarter-cent sales tax
Haywood schools face repair work, shifting student enrollment
NCHSAA guidelines state that “after a student’s initial entry into Grade 9, and absent a change in residence for a bona fide purpose… A student who transfers from one school to another school within the same Public School Unit (PSU) shall not participate in interscholastic athletics for 365 calendar days following the student’s enrollment in the new school.”
However, while the guidelines say a student is ineligible for the first year after a transfer for any other reason than a bona fide move, they also allow for the governing authority of a PSU to adopt a policy allowing immediate eligibility for students.
A bona fide move happens when a student’s residential address changes, and they are districted to a new high school under the new address — moving from Waynesville to Canton or vice versa is an example of this sort of move that might warrant a change in high schools. Under this type of transfer with a bona fide change in residency, the student athlete does not lose eligibility for athletics under either the NCHSAA rules or Haywood County School Board policy.
The other category in which a student transfers between schools is considered a pupil reassignment. This happens when a student has no bona fide change in residency that warrants a jump from one high school to another, but the family requests a transfer for some other reason. In the past, a student athlete in Haywood County that requested pupil reassignment did not lose athletic eligibility. Now, however, with the new policy, that student would lose athletic eligibility for one full year.
Previously, the policy regarding student athlete transfers mandated that high school student athletes approved for transfer did not lose eligibility due to the transfer. The rule applied whether the student transferred for a bona fide move or under pupil reassignment.
Board Member Logan Nesbitt brought up the issue of student athlete transfer policy during the Nov. 12 school board meeting when he requested adding the policy change to the agenda for first read. Nesbitt joined the board in 2020 and serves on the Building and Grounds and Special Issues committees.
The policy change passed first reading at the Nov. 12 school board meeting and was on the agenda for second read during the Dec. 9 meeting. After a policy passes second reading, it goes into effect.
COUNSELING CAUTION VS. PUSHING FOR CHANGE
At the outset of the Dec. 9 meeting, Board Member Larry Henson suggested that the board table the policy for 30 days to garner more information about what other policies would be affected by the change and what the process for implementation would be.
“I’m asking to table the policy 3620-R,” said Henson. “I think at this time that I would like to see some more information from Mr. Haynes; he’s supposed to get us some, on not only how many other policies it’s going to affect, but there’s a whole lot of questions that we have.”
Assistant Superintendent Graham Haynes explained that changing the regulation does create a host of considerations for the board like exemptions to the rule and an appeals process.
“It may even be that a student leaves the early college and decides to go back to Tuscola or Pisgah, and in that case, with no exceptions, if they’re transferring, they’d have to sit out, which I think would probably be unintended,” said Haynes. “So, if that is the will of the board to change that regulation, I would caution you to consider just what exemptions you think you’d need. Do you need an appeals process?”
Nesbitt asked Haynes whether the board could adopt the policy change and then evaluate the other policies that are connected.
“You could,” Haynes said. “But if it goes into action now, if there are any transfers while we’re evaluating, it’s going to be blanket, no exemptions, 365, it just is what it is.”
Board Attorney Pat Smathers also counseled caution, as he tried to explain the sorts of complicated cases that could come before the board if it decided to enact the 365-day rule. Not only did Smathers foresee complications in parsing out what constituted a bona fide change in residency — pointing out child custody agreements that split time between parents, as well as families claiming residency somewhere they don’t actually live — he also outlined consequences of barring students from sports for legitimate pupil reassignment decisions.
Smathers used the example of a student choosing to transfer between Tuscola and Pisgah for a different ROTC program — Tuscola has an Air Force program while Pisgah has a Navy program — and that student being ineligible from their sport, whatever that may be, for a full year.
“It ain’t just football,” Smathers said. “I mean, are you going to say, ‘we’re not going to let you play volleyball?’ That’s a tough thing for y’all to say. How do you enforce that? It’s not the intent.”
Tuscola has an Air Force JROTC program while Pisgah has a Navy JROTC program. File photo
“I’m not saying don’t do it,” Smathers continued. “But think about the possibilities of how it’s going to affect the kids.”
School board member Ronnie Clark noted that the policy committee did not recommend the change that the board was considering, and Haynes confirmed, “they were not in support of changing the policy.”
“So traditionally this board has taken the recommendations from the policy committee and respectfully taken their wishes and then taken it and carried it forward,” Clark said. “Every time we’ve had issues we say, ‘send it to the policy committee.’ But this time we decided they’re not good enough, so let’s go ahead and do it this way?”
But other board members argued that barring students who transfer from one school to another was the right decision because it aligned with NCHSAA policy, as well as that of most other school districts around the state.
“So y’all are saying the NCHSAA has it wrong, because that’s their policy,” said Board Member Marla Morris. “108 districts out of 115, is my understanding, follow these guidelines right here and I don’t see how 108 districts have it wrong.”
That 108 estimate was thrown out by Nesbitt at the November meeting, but the board later learned it was pretty far off. At the Dec. 12 work session, after he’d had time to gather more information on the issue, Haynes explained that out of 115 school districts in North Carolina, 51 allow for immediate eligibility when students transfer under pupil reassignment. The other 64 either have policy requiring pupil reassignment transfer students to sit out for 365 days, or they have no policy and therefore revert to the NCHSAA rule requiring 365 days of ineligibility.
But without this pertinent piece of information, a majority of school board members pushed ahead for the change at the Dec. 9 meeting.
“I’m the one that brought this up a month ago, and I’m going to take full responsibility for it,” Nesbitt said. “I’ve been on this board and have been blessed to be on this board for four years, and we have kicked this can down the road the four years I’ve been on here and sitting back watching the board for another eight to 12 years, two to three terms. It’s time something’s done. When a 3A school cannot even field a girls’ basketball team, it’s ridiculous.”
Both Henson and Jimmy Rogers argued that even though the policy change might be the right thing to do, the board should take the time to flesh out the full procedure before enacting it.
“I think we need to get the procedures, said Rogers. “Before we actually enforce it.”
“So, you don’t think over the past eight or 10 years that we’ve had time to think about it?” Nesbitt asked. “How much longer do we need to explore?”
“We may have [had time], but we didn’t do it, and now it’s brought up in one month and we still don’t have it,” said Rogers. “So that part needs to be done before the next meeting.”
Henson also said that he wasn’t necessarily against the policy change, but that certain aspects of the change needed to be figured out before implementing it.
“I’m not saying that I’m opposed to this,” said Henson. “I’m saying that we’re jumping the gun trying to implement it tonight when we don’t know the repercussions of what’s going to happen to the kid that has to be reassigned. We’re punishing kids that are legitimately going to have to switch schools.”
Nesbitt said that between the November and December board meetings, he received 27 public inputs. Of those, three were against the change and 24 were in favor of it. He said that no Tuscola parent, from the inputs he received, has been against the policy and that of the five received from Pisgah parents, three were against the change and two were for it.
“One [Pisgah parent] was totally for the 365 rule because a student transferred from Tuscola to Pisgah and took their child’s spot on a team,” said Nesbitt. “This doesn’t just affect the kids that’s transferring, it affects kids at the school they leave, it affects kids at the school they go to. It hurts kids at both schools.”
At the Dec. 9 meeting, the school board voted 3-5 against tabling the policy for 30 days, with Henson, Rogers and Clark voting in favor of tabling and Nesbitt, Morris, David Burnette, Steven Kirkpatrick, and Jim Francis voting against.
The board then held a vote to approve the 365-day rule on second read, which passed by the same margin.
QUESTIONS ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION
After the board passed the policy Monday, Dec. 9, it held a work session Thursday, Dec. 12, to hash out the ripple effect of the change — what other policies would be affected, what would the appeals process look like, whether there would be any exemptions, and how to deal with out-of-county transfers.
The question of out-of-county transfers had been a topic of concern since the beginning of the discussion over implementing the 365-day rule, because in doing so, there is essentially more recourse for students transferring into the county from another school district and aiming to maintain athletic eligibility than for students transferring from one high school to another within the county.
Under the NCHSAA rules, and the HCS policy change as approved Monday, Dec. 9, when a student transfers from one high school to another within Haywood County, they are automatically barred from participating in high school sports for one year, unless they’ve had a bona fide change in residency.
When a student transfers from one school district to another, they must receive permission from the district they are leaving and the district they are entering to be immediately eligible for high school athletics. However, if either district denies eligibility, the student can appeal to the NCHSAA. That body can grant immediate eligibility, overriding either or both districts’ denial and essentially force the receiving school district to allow the student to participate in athletics.
The same recourse through the NCHSAA is not available for students transferring from one high school to another within the same district if they are denied eligibility by school board policy or the appeals process.
“It’s hogwash to let somebody from outside the county take positions our kids have been playing all their life,” said Burnette. “That shouldn’t be happening.”
But how common is it for students to transfer into Haywood County Schools without having a bona fide change in residency?
“We have several right now, mostly elementary aged, but they claim work-related hardship, work in our county, want their kids to come with them where they work,” said Superintendent Trevor Putnam. “Some of them work for us, some of them work in our county. The opposite county releases them, it comes to us to accept them and so they would not have a bona fide move.”
In the wake of Hurricane Helene, Associate Superintendent Jill Barker told the Smoky Mountain News that the school system had 48 new enrollments and 24 withdrawals. However, Barker did note that the school system couldn’t determine exactly how many of those were due to the flood.
Rogers and Clark both noted that after the flood, families around Western North Carolina were living in precarious situations, a lot of which are not permanent, whether because they are having to rent temporarily, stay with family members or some other intermediate fix.
“I think what you’re hitting on, is it’s impossible to police,” said Putnam.
THE CULTURE QUESTION, THE DEEPER PROBLEM
Throughout the entire process of changing the policy related to high school athletic eligibility, the normally civil, quiet school board engaged in discussion that at times became heated.
Anyone in Haywood County knows just how serious the Pisgah-Tuscola rivalry is, and conversation among the school board about high school athletics was tinged with emotion. Board members on both sides of the issue at one point or another took time to recognize that the root of the issue might be deeper than whether students are allowed to transfer schools without athletic penalty.
During the Dec. 9 meeting, Nesbitt asked Putnam point blank, “Do we have a culture problem at Tuscola High School?”
“Well, I think within athletics, you may,” Putnam responded. “As a whole, you do not. But I think within athletics, you may.”
Spectators observe pregame activities at C.E. Weatherby Stadium. File photo
Putnam conceded that he wasn’t the best person to answer the question, as he does not work at the school every day and interact with students and coaches, and that Principal Casey Conard would be better equipped to talk about that issue.
“I think his track record already, if you look at academic performance, is on a positive trajectory,” said Putnam. “But Tuscola High School didn’t get to the place where it is overnight, and it’s not going to get out of the place it’s in overnight.”
At the Dec. 12 work session, the culture question came up again when board members tried to delve into why Tuscola couldn’t field a girls’ junior varsity basketball team.
Haynes told the board he had looked at the past five years of girls’ basketball teams at Waynesville Middle School. He found that there are currently 11 students at Tuscola who played basketball at Waynesville Middle that are currently playing at the high school level. There are another nine girls at Tuscola that do not play basketball that did play at Waynesville Middle. There are five girls at Pisgah currently playing basketball who played at Waynesville Middle School. Of those, four transferred to the Pisgah district due to bona fide moves. There have been six other girls at Pisgah, not playing basketball, who played basketball for Waynesville Middle School.
The varsity basketball team at Tuscola currently has 14 girls, the Pisgah varsity team has 16 girls and the Pisgah JV team has 8.
But not all board members are convinced that transfers are the primary issue.
“That participation problem you got right there, I don’t think that’s all been related to transfers,” said Rogers.
Smathers asked the board whether this was “a solution in search of a problem,” and asked the athletic directors from each high school to chime in on the issue.
“It’s a problem, and I support the 365 rule,” said Tuscola Athletic Director Adam Chambers.
“I think for us at Pisgah, we have kids that transfer; it’s not an issue,” said Pisgah Athletic Director Heidi Morgan. “If a child doesn’t want to be in a certain school, I don’t think they should be forced to stay. Forcing them to stay doesn’t mean they’re going to play athletics, and this is a policy about athletics.”
But Chambers argued that there isn’t a problem with non-athlete students transferring.
“It has hurt us the past 10 years for sure,” said Chambers. “I’m glad the board made the decision they made the other night. I think it was time. I think they did the right thing.”
Tuscola Principal Casey Conard said that the focus needs to be on students, and that he would like to see a committee that is available to weigh in on individual cases, as well as clear exceptions for the 365-day rule.
“I’ll be very honest, I’m on the policy committee; I was not for this rule at first,” said Conard.
Conard said that now, he is in support of 365-day rule for a couple of reasons. First, it’s difficult for the principals to make the decision whether to approve a pupil reassignment request, especially when it impacts a school negatively. Both Conard and Morgan said that it would be important to have exceptions for bullying.
Putnam asked principals and athletic directors whether there had been uproar over transfers and athletic eligibility within the schools and all agreed that there had not.
“It’s good inside the walls,” said Putnam. “The stir is outside our schools, and it begins or tries to creep into our schools. The thing I would ask is that whatever change or movement you make, you do it in a way that preserves inside the walls of the school.”
Part of the complication arising following the policy change is determining who will approve student transfer requests. Previously, principals at each school approved student reassignment requests, and because there was no 365-day rule, athletics were not part of the decision.
Now, it is unclear whether principals will still be approving student reassignment requests and athletic eligibility will be a separate decision for the board to make, or whether the school board will be making both pupil reassignment and athletic eligibility decisions.
Under current policy, principals would still approve pupil reassignment requests, which would automatically make a student ineligible for athletics, unless they qualify for the set of exemptions the school board has yet to outline.
The school board now seems to want to put a procedure in place that would create a two-member committee of the school board to approve or deny each pupil reassignment request and athletic eligibility decision. Then, the student could choose to appeal that committee’s decision to the rest of the board if needed.
The board came up with five broad exemption categories that they would like to see for the new policy including medical or mental health issues; social services or court system decisions; children of employees being allowed to attend the school where their parent works; safe school transfers for bullying or similar incidents; and students experiencing homelessness or foster care.
The board sent this list of exemptions back to the policy committee to review. The policy committee will send it back before the board after 30 days for review. There will then be another 30-day period before final approval of the exemption or appeal policy.
However, as the policy currently stands, approved by the board on Dec. 9, if a student transfers between high schools under pupil reassignment, they are automatically ineligible for high school athletics for one year. This will be the case until the board passes policies — or addendums to policies — that address exemptions and the appeals process.
