Also from Todays West Bend Daily News: HS ATHLETICS No equity proposal for now Committee wants to do more research By NICHOLAS DETTMANN Daily News With a topic of this magnitude and with the longterm impact it will have if implemented, the ad-hoc committee responsible for assembling a plan with the hope of creating competitive equity decided it wasn’t ready to make a proposal to the WIAA. Instead, more time is needed. For seven hours Wednesday in Stevens Point, the committee met and discussed three potential solutions to the long-standing debate of competitive inequity. “We had a productive day,” said Kettle Moraine Lutheran Superintendent David Bartelt, a committee member. “We spent the entire day tearing apart the three proposals that we were on the table.” In April, a proposal for a 1.65 enrollment multiplier on nonpublic high schools in the WIAA membership to determine postseason placement was proposed to the WIAA’s membership of more than 500 schools. At that meeting, the membership decided more research was necessary before making a decision that will impact every school in the state. Instead, an ad-hoc committee was formed with the task of finding a solution. The goal? Allowing more opportunities for teams to get to outside of the socalled powerhouse schools. The proposal stemmed from members of the Six Rivers Conference claiming competitive unfairness. Wednesday’s meeting was scheduled to be the final meeting between the 21 committee members, with the intention of introducing a proposal to the WIAA, which would then be left for the WIAA’s Board of Control to vote on at its December meeting. At that meeting, the Board of Control would vote yes or no to forward the proposal to the WIAA membership at the annual meeting in April. Equity: Committee to reconvene Oct. 28 Instead, the committee has been separated into subcommittees to explore the three potential solutions that were introduced at last month’s area meetings. They will reconvene Oct. 28. “We’re still in process of tearing down and building up possible solutions,” Bartelt said. “The committee is still working extremely well together, being very cordial with the same desire to find a balanced solution across the state without punishing anybody.” The three potential solutions are: ■ Free/reduced lunch reducer. Follows Minnesota plan where 40 percent of students free and reduced lunch count in enrollment. ■ Success factor. Establish a point system for state tournament movement. ■ Geographical, boundary- specific multiplier. Establish a radius for attendance regardless of open enrollment. “It was an in-depth conversation about each one,” Bartelt said. “There is no perfect solution. Not one solution can stand out at this point.” “There’s not one solution everybody will be happy with,” he added. “We have to keep the student-athlete in mind first. It’s got to be about the student-athlete.” Bartelt said one of those solutions or mixing them will likely be proposed. And depending on the proposal, a timeline for implementation will also be introduced following the Oct. 28 meeting. “There was progress,” Bartelt said. “We’re anxious to meet again.” Bartelt outlined the pros and cons of each proposal: ■ Free/reduced lunch reducer — Pro: It creates competitive equity where schools can report lower participation numbers; Con: If a large school moves down, it could move a small school up, creating more inequity. In addition, members of the executive staff of the Minnesota high school governing body don’t believe it has data indicating the method is working. ■ Success factor — Pro: It can be sport specific; Con: It can have a perception of punishing success. ■ Geographic multiplier — Pro: Public schools have boundaries while nonpublic schools don’t, thus it treats all schools equally; Con: Where is the boundary set? “I believe at the next meeting we will have it pinned down to one potential solution that will answer almost all the questions that were asked today,” Bartelt said.
Posted on: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:58:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015