O/E is just another way for people to run away from the problems rather than trying to find solutions and fixing them.
The same can be said for the new transfer proposal, it doesn't even state a problem, it just blindly punishes everyone without recognizing enough vaild reasons for transfer.
OE was invented to give you a way to get away from the issues of your home school and have the same advantages others have.
If you want to change the hockey in your town you need to start by fixing things at the mite level. Not likely your HS kid will benefit from that so you don't see many people trying unless they have 6 kids.
I would really like to know who is on the 40 man committee. If they all agreed it's not representative of the community unless the reason some of them think the change needed was to allow even more liberal transfer rules. My assumption is it's mostly athletic directors and caoches.
I think change is needed to the transfer policy as well but in order to do so I think the MSHSL needs to go back to the legislature and get them to redo OE explicitly stating what it's for and what it isn't for. The current statute does not do that. If the legislature believes that extra curricular activites are not a part a valid reason for OE, then they should say so along with some valid tests to prove it. Then the MSHSL can create proper rules to enfore the statue, not just someones idea of what the statute mean to them. This should be doable the next session and the MSHSL can be ready with new rules for the 2008-9 school year.
O/E vs. State Funding;
I do believe that that State Funding for students is based on amt. of the County Tax Bas for that School District. Point-in case ; Take a small School in a rural county (ex. Lake County) 90% County/State/Federal owned property. There is no tax revenue from that property, so the Tax Base is less that that of say Duluth, EP, Edina, Grand Rapids, Hibbibg, etc.
Small Schools (rural districts) let say recieve $400 perday/per student, urban district recieve twice that amt. If you loss 15 students to OE in graduating class of 75 that is very harmful to the local school and it's operating budget for first Academics and also Sports.
O/E has other issues to be considered that Sports Rankings'
Recruit |ri?kro?t| verb
[ trans. ] Enlist (someone) in the armed forces : they recruit their toughest soldiers from the desert tribes | [ intrans. ] the regiment was still actively recruiting.
• Form (an army or other force) by enlisting new people : a basis for recruiting an army.
• Enroll (someone) as a member or worker in an organization or as a supporter of a cause : there are plans to recruit more staff later this year.
• [ trans. ] informal persuade (someone) to do or assist in doing something : she recruited her children to help run the racket.
The definition of recruiter does not define who is doing the recruitment. It could be coaches, parents of student already enrolled in a school or their children.
My argument is that when several students from a given school OE to another, recruitment is suspect. By whom is not the issue.
Proving recruitment is complicated and a waste of MHSL funds. The MHSL is a non-profit democratic board of directors and does not receive any State funding.
The restriction of OE eligibility by the MHSL is essential, as the loopholes in the rules as they are written now have created a public uproar. State legislature approval is only needed for legal backing.
[quote="ice29"]O/E vs. State Funding;
I do believe that that State Funding for students is based on amt. of the County Tax Bas for that School District. Point-in case ; Take a small School in a rural county (ex. Lake County) 90% County/State/Federal owned property. There is no tax revenue from that property, so the Tax Base is less that that of say Duluth, EP, Edina, Grand Rapids, Hibbibg, etc.
Small Schools (rural districts) let say recieve $400 perday/per student, urban district recieve twice that amt. If you loss 15 students to OE in graduating class of 75 that is very harmful to the local school and it's operating budget for first Academics and also Sports.
O/E has other issues to be considered that Sports Rankings'[/quote]
Funding Public schools is a tricky topic.
Yes, funds follow students that open enroll. No, not all funds can follow. The funds that follow are state funds that are determined by the Adjusted Marginal Cost Pupil Units (AMPCU)...
Students in Rural Minnesota get the same funds as students in urban Minnesota. This was changed in 1971 in a policy called the Minnesota Miracle. The only difference in urban vs. rural districts is... Urban districts or suburban districts have better success in passing levee referendums which supplement the expenditures spent on each pupil.
Some districts have lower taxes because they have large companies within their borders, but this doesn't mean they spend less on their student body. Any money spent above the AMPCU needs a voter approved referendum.
Also, privates do receive money from the tax-payers. Money used for textbooks, buses, and anything for non-Sectarian education gets some funding.
Sorry for rambling... OE does help the schools that receive the OE student more than it hurts. Schools don't end up hiring a new teacher if they get 4 or 5 new students... They just get the extra 20,000 to 25,000 dollars that follow those 4 or 5 students. This might be why some districts are okay with open enrollment.
Last edited by hotdog on Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thank you for the info. , Hotdog
I do agree. I don't agree, IMO, that every student is should be able to take State Funding $$$$$ to where ever they want. Should a Parent want to OE a child in a different District, maybe 1/2 of the State Funding should stay in the District the Parent Lives in and 1/2 to the OE District.
Maybe we would see a different attitude in the Districts and Schools that promote or denefit with OE. In the Game of OE vs. State Funding(small school) or Urban Districts vs. Rural Districts. What would be the Score:
[quote="ice29"]Thank you for the info. , Hotdog
I do agree. I don't agree, IMO, that every student is should be able to take State Funding $$$$$ to where ever they want. Should a Parent want to OE a child in a different District, maybe 1/2 of the State Funding should stay in the District the Parent Lives in and 1/2 to the OE District.
Maybe we would see a different attitude in the Districts and Schools that promote or denefit with OE. In the Game of OE vs. State Funding(small school) or Urban Districts vs. Rural Districts. What would be the Score:
This is hard to do... AMPCU is figured in a formula where schools multiply the number of students the district has by another state given figure. If a district loses lets say 10% of their student body... there is another formula for declining enrollment, which should help the declining district, or district that has lost numbers. This is to help that school maintain some of their programs.
Schools do not want a majority of their student body to be OE students as their per pupil expenditure decreases based on the amount of voter levied dollars. Voter levied dollars are based on household property tax, not state taxes.
OE does help the schools that receive the OE student more than it hurts. Schools don't end up hiring a new teacher if they get 4 or 5 new students... They just get the extra 20,000 to 25,000 dollars that follow those 4 or 5 students. This might be why some districts are okay with open enrollment.
I didn't realize there were districts that were against OE. The only people I've ever heard complain about OE were involved in sports, and their only complaint was about the fairness of teams who have OE students beating other teams who don't have as many OE students. Even those people don't complain about OE in principal, just controlling cases where it appears a student has OE'd and then had success playing a sport for his/her OE school. There might be 400 OE students at EP HS but the only ones anybody is concerned about are the 4 who play girls' hockey.
I'm in favor of OE with no limits if it will produce citizens who can tell the difference between there, their, and they're. It is breathtaking to witness the number of people who post on this forum who don't have a clue when to use these three words. I would estimate 25-40% of the posters. It's depressing. Please everybody, find a school district immediately that will teach their students this concept and keep them there until they're comfortable with it. Then you can send them back to your home district.
On a related, but separate topic, will the new proposed transfer rules apply equally to all MSHL extra-curricular activities? For example, will a student who open enrolls be prevented from participating in Debate or Band? A student may only be open enrolling to gain notoriety in Debate and thus be able to get a head start on being a Supreme Court Justice some day. Or a student who is interested in Music may be open enrolling only to gain notoriety in Music so that they can get a recording contract wtih Motown records. Shouldn't these students be forced to sit out a year of Debate or Band as well???" Why discriminate related to sports???
What about a swimmer, who open enrolls. Swimming is an individual sport judged solely on time. Isn't is safe to assume that a student-athlete swimmer who has open-enrolled did so for academic reasons? Why make a swimmer sit out for a season. After all, Swimmer A will not swim faster because Swimmer B is in the pool.
Bensonmum wrote:I'm in favor of OE with no limits if it will produce citizens who can tell the difference between there, their, and they're. It is breathtaking to witness the number of people who post on this forum who don't have a clue when to use these three words. I would estimate 25-40% of the posters. It's depressing. Please everybody, find a school district immediately that will teach their students this concept and keep them there until they're comfortable with it. Then you can send them back to your home district.
Swimming is a good one, if you go to the MSHSL page and review all the sports there are many minor sports that would be reason enough to transfer. Dance, cheerleading, Music, Act One play, Synchronized swimming and those kinds of activities seem good examples.
[quote="Bensonmum"]I'm in favor of OE with no limits if it will produce citizens who can tell the difference between [i]there, their, and they're[/i]. It is breathtaking to witness the number of people who post on this forum who don't have a clue when to use these three words. I would estimate 25-40% of the posters. It's depressing. Please everybody, find a school district immediately that will teach [i]their[/i] students this concept and keep them [i]there[/i] until [i]they're[/i] comfortable with it. Then you can send them back to your home district.[/quote]
Grammar 101: (Good thought)
Most of the time posters are just writing and not thinking, which is okay with me. Even worse than the "there, their, they're" is the use of "a lot"... Not one word such as "alot" which is not a word... or "allot" which is a word. I will "allot" you time to take in this idea, although not "a lot" of time!
School district information can be found on www.education.state.mn.us Look under the School Report Card section to find number of students coming into district and number of students leaving district.
Bensonmum wrote:I'm in favor of OE with no limits if it will produce citizens who can tell the difference between there, their, and they're. It is breathtaking to witness the number of people who post on this forum who don't have a clue when to use these three words. I would estimate 25-40% of the posters. It's depressing. Please everybody, find a school district immediately that will teach their students this concept and keep them there until they're comfortable with it. Then you can send them back to your home district.
Here! Here! Thank you Bensonmum. I doubt it will make a difference in the posts, but I appreciate knowing that I'm not the only being annoyed by the lack of correct spelling and use of punctuation. It is inconsiderate to the readers, IMO (In my opinion). Sometimes it takes me awhile to figure out the acronyms too. lol
Quite an interesting topic with many good opinions.....
xk1 wrote:
Swimming is a good one, if you go to the MSHSL page and review all the sports there are many minor sports that would be reason enough to transfer. Dance, cheerleading, Music, Act One play, Synchronized swimming and those kinds of activities seem good examples.
Actually, swimming is a team sport. Teams compete in conference, sections, and state and are scored as teams and are awarded team state championships !!!
thegame wrote:
Acrtually the Eden Prairie school district has more students that leave thru OE than come in. And it is more than 4 on the girls hockey team.
I believe that there are many more than 4 on the EP Team. Anybody know the facts and are willing to share them ????
In the end, I agree with xk1 in that first we must change the statute iteslf to better define the parameters of O/E. Then the MSHSL can impose a 1 yr waiting period for athletics (perhaps you state the specific athletics). O/E should be about providing academic choice, not to build sports dynasties with multiple O/E (particularly those of NDP ability). Once that is established and accepted, the imposition of a 1 yr waiting period should be a common sense protection against those who wish to abuse the intent of O/E.
Right on swimming but like track, golf, etc top individuals get to move on. Imagine being on a synchronized swimming team where there were no good swimmers, not too fun, but then sports aren't really important, that's why so much time is spent trying to change the rules.
Acrtually the Eden Prairie school district has more students that leave thru OE than come in.
Thanks for the link!
OK, 311 EP students are from other school districts and 411 from EP go elsewhere. The HS has 3267 students.
Let compare that to another school, say Kennedy. BK has an enrollment of 1778, 350 of those transferred in from another school district while 624 of East Bloomington kids attend school in another school district. From this we can easily see that the only reason 3 of those students left was hockey, I wonder why the other 621 choose to go elsewhere?
Great News - this means O/E is working well for those students it was intended to work for. It also means that a simple 1 yr. waiting period on athletics will only affect a very few. Good news for all.
I apolgize, I believe my data on Kennedy was incorrect, the figures on mobility are for the entire school district so it is both Kennedy and Jefferson. Not only that, but it includes all grades so the information on this site is of questionable use for OE at the HS level. The data is from 2004-2005 as well.
Edina has some interesting numbers, 985 transfer in and only 189 out.
Thunderbird77 wrote:On a related, but separate topic, will the new proposed transfer rules apply equally to all MSHL extra-curricular activities? For example, will a student who open enrolls be prevented from participating in Debate or Band? A student may only be open enrolling to gain notoriety in Debate and thus be able to get a head start on being a Supreme Court Justice some day. Or a student who is interested in Music may be open enrolling only to gain notoriety in Music so that they can get a recording contract wtih Motown records. Shouldn't these students be forced to sit out a year of Debate or Band as well???" Why discriminate related to sports???
Yes all school activities are included in this proposal. If a kid wants to be in a school play and he transfers in under the newly proposed O/E program guidelines he would have to sit out a year if he had participated in theater or plays at his previous school. Do not know how you enforce that or what the penalty would be but yes the proposal involves all school related activities.
But it is not these kids that are abusing the O/E system as it was set-up to work. " Gosh Darn it, if we only had little Spencer from Edina in our play, we would be sure to sell-out and get a good review!"
Last edited by tomASS on Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
hockeyrube wrote:Great News - this means O/E is working well for those students it was intended to work for. It also means that a simple 1 yr. waiting period on athletics will only affect a very few. Good news for all.
exactly! It affects the ones that are using it for the wrong reason.
Yes somebody gets it!
hockeyrube wrote: Great News - this means O/E is working well for those students it was intended to work for. It also means that a simple 1 yr. waiting period on athletics will only affect a very few. Good news for all.
Thomas wrote;exactly! It affects the ones that are using it for the wrong reason. Yes somebody gets it!
It would also be great 'somebody got' the concept that the rule will affect everyone, not just girl hockey players who transfer from Bloomington to Eden Prairie. But hey, I guess sitting out of all sports-extra currucular activities for the thousands of students who open enroll is not too high of a price to pay to eliminate sports dynasties based on transfers. I wonder where the future sports dynasties will be located now that they won't be based on transfers and schools that recruit. Perhaps the proposed rules will eliminate HS sports dynasties all together. At least these dynasties will only be based on home-grown talent, which is so important...at least to the people who 'get it'. The rest of us, unfortunately, aren't so enlightened as to the relationship between where your house is located and your athletic development.
THANK YOU!