Q: We have a player that did not dress because of grades last nighty in our 1st tournament game. Does he remain ineligible for the remainder of the WIAA BB tournament. At mid term our code states they become eligible as soon as they correct the grade. At the end of the quarter or semester we follow the 1 week or 15 day scenario. Can't find this in the book and want to make sure we follow procedure - I believe they are ineligible for the remainder of the tournament. Please confirm.
A: There are three types of rules: NFHS & Season Regulations, Academic, and Code of Conduct. 1) If an athlete is ineligible for behavior (p. 39, Article VII, Section 3), the athlete is out of the entire tournament (p. 39, VII-3-D). 2) If an athlete is ineligible because of an ejection, it is the result of an NFHS rule and Season Regulation and he/she may return to the tournament once the ejection penalty is served. 3) If an athlete is academically ineligible and your code of conduct allows return, the athlete may return on the 16th scheduled school day if two or more F's (p. 36, V-2-A-1) or when your code of conduct allows if less than two F's.
Keep in mind that athletes who are ineligible during the WIAA tournament (for any reason) may not appear in uniform, participate in warm-ups, and may not participate in the awards ceremony at the WIAA tournament (p. 39, VII-3-E). In this question and situation, the athlete may return when they become academically eligible. Always apply your code as written.
Q: Just a quick question on 15 day ineligibility. I am sure I am right on this one, but I know the parent is going to be asking questions and I want to be prepared. A wrestler's 15 day ineligibility ends today because it is the 15th day. He is not eligible for regionals tomorrow because it is not a scheduled school day correct? His eligibility would resume on Monday.
A: You are correct. He becomes eligible on the 16th scheduled school day: Monday.
Q.: Our district recently passed a policy that students be required to maintain a 2.0 grade point average in order to be involved in extracurricular activities (sports, etc.). The question that has been brought up is, what happens to the special ed students who try as they might, can't make this new GPA requirement. Is there anything that can be written in the IEP to allow them to participate in these activities and "outrank" the school policy? Some have said that if it's written in the IEP than it should be followed. But, this really doesn't relate to FAPE does it? I don't know if others have experience with this and if there has been any court cases that have set a precedence for something like this.
A.: I completely agree with the basic premise I read in your comments... regarding FAPE vs IEP and sports participation. "Requiring" sports participation in an IEP is not appropriate any more then it would be expected for the IEP to also prescribe what position a student ought to play or how much playing time the student should receive! Your district may want to address the 2.0 gpa requirement in light of students identified as having special needs and/or students who may not meet specific definitions to be afforded an IEP, but still have some diminished capacity or extraordinary need. It may be done either, individually, based on identified and specific needs (in the IEP). It may be done as broad policy. Either way, it ought to be "spelled out" (keep in mind that if you put a different standard then 2.0 in the IEP, the student must still meet that standard, and meeting an alternative GPA standard or requirement is far different then putting sport participation as a requirement in the IEP). In my former role as an AD, we developed an academic standard which had both, a no-F policy and a GPA requirement. We developed a relief mechanism/policy/plan in anticipation of the possibility that a student might not be able to meet the GPA requirement. In effect, the simplest/most effective means we came up with was a teacher "sign-off" sheet. We would NOT set aside the "no F" component. We would not accept failure for a student. But if each/every teacher "signed off" that the student was current and doing everything reasonably possible to succeed in the class, I could waive the gpa requirement. As I recall, our expectations for waiving the gpa, included: 100% class attendance; 100% up to date on assignments; participates in positive manner in class; seeks out the teacher for extra help outside the class. We designed the model for weekly or bi-weekly feedback from teachers. The student was responsible to initiate all contacts between teachers, AD and coaches. We designed it to promote teacher/student interface...and student accountability/ownership.
Q.: We have one varsity soccer team, a red JV soccer team and a white JV soccer team, and a red freshman team and a white freshman team. I understand that academic ineligibility stemming from a fourth quarter failing grade shall result in the lesser of 21 calendar days beginning with the date of earliest competition (September 14) or one third of the maximum games allowed in a sport. Is one third of the games allowed based solely on the varsity season schedule, or each schedule for each level? As an example, one third of the JV season is a different "date" for eligibility than one third of a varsity season. In turn, one third of the season in the JV red schedule is different than one third for the white schedule. Is it possible to have, five different dates of eligibility based on what one-third of a season is? Or is the one-third of the season based on the varsity schedule and, therefore, soccer has one "date" for eligibility. Understood is the lesser of 21 days or one-third.
A.: The 21 calendar days would be the same "count" for all, i.e. the earliest allowed date for competing would be no earlier then what the scheduled varsity is, since the days are counted from the earliest date that practice can begin. In so far as JV and varsity, the max number of games that can be scheduled is the same for all sports, (e.g. varsity 24 games for soccer/24 for JV) thus one third the max allowed would be identical for varsity and for JV. You are correct to adjust figure for frosh. The max they are allowed is 16. Thus one third is 5.3, rounded up to six games. Whether you've filled the frosh or varsity/JV schedule ornot, the suspension is based on max allowed.
Q.: We have a student who competed in wrestling during grades 9-11. The family moved to Florida, while the wrestler moved to live and work with grandparents in Puerto Rico for one year. The wrestler did not receive any education for the year. The wrestler returned to our school, established residency with parents, and plans to complete his senior year. Is the wrestler eligible to compete as a "fifth year senior" having only completed six semesters of education? The wrestler will turn 18 during the upcoming school year.
A.: No. Not without a consecutive semester waiver. A student has the potential for up to eight consecutive semesters of eligibility beginning with grade nine. His consecutive semester "clock" or count begins when he began 9th grade. That he or the family chose to take a year off does not stop that count.
Q.: Referring to page 35, Section 2 - Academic Eligibility, part A in the WIAA 2004-2005 Handbook, "A student must meet.... In the most recent grade-reporting period." Our school is in a four period block schedule. Grades go on transcripts at the end of each nine week term. But every three weeks we make available "progress reports." In the past, these reports did not give out specific grades, but rather statements of progress like, "acceptable, currently failing," etc. Now we have a new computer network grading program that does not allow these phrases to be used. For progress reports, we will have to give out actual letter grades now. Our code of conduct refers to grades at the end of each nine week term - the progress reports had no impact on eligibility. May we continue to consider the most recent grade reporting period to be the ones that occur at every nine weeks?
A.: Absolutely. Your dilemma is not unique. For added awareness and clarification, you might find a way to document that: "Even though we are providing a letter grade at this time in this progress report, it's important to note that the final quarter grade could change and may rise or fall depending on work submitted between the time of this report and the end of the nine week grading term. NOTE: Academic eligibility for all extra curricular activities shall be based on the actual nine week grade which is the grade that will appear on the student's permanent record of this term. (This is just an idea.) Bottom line, the "progress report" is not the "final" grade...for the grading term, only an indication/a snap shot of where the student is at present and does not need to be used for determining eligibility in this application.
Q.: In the Handbook under Rules of Eligibility - Article V, section 2A 7 a.(page 36), it states minimum of 21 days beginning with the date of earliest allowed competition in sport. Does competition mean when practice starts, or when games start. I used the start of the season, and was questioned on it. We have the same wording in our code as the WIAA for fall sports.
A.: Earliest date of competition is the date of first game. Not the date practice may begin. See Handbook pgs. 9-10; the earliest date of each "first game" for each sport is identified. That "earliest date you may "compete"/play a game, is "ONE" - the first day of your 21 calendar day count. There is also a matrix for fall sport eligibility on the web and on p. 5 of the June Bulletin. Penalties for use of ineligible players is outline on p. 31 of the Handbook.
Q.: I would like your input on the following situation. A student this summer transferred from our school to School X and wants to play football. In looking at his academic record for last semester, he received two failing grades from us. However, the student took two sessions of science in summer school at X High School and received a passing grade for both classes. The student failed both physical science and world cultures at our school. In looking at the bylaws it states a student may become eligible through summer school provided the courses made up are equivalent. The School X coach is asking me to determine whether or not the student would be eligible. How does one determine if the classes are equivalent in this case? My feeling is that the student would be eligible at X. Is this correct? (Please note I am not sure how the science classes compare).
A.: You are correct. The use of "equivalent" in this text speaks to the number of F/Classes made up; i.e., if the student failed two classes and you were a "WIAA minimum code requirement school" (not morethen one failing grade), the student would have to make up one class to restore eligibility. If he failed three classes he'd need to make up at least two, etc. (That's the "equivalent" number of F's that made him not eligible.) If you were a "No F" policy, then the equivalent is two classes made up...or the exact same number as he may have failed. Under no circumstance could a student erase multiple failures with less then the same number of classes completed in summer. Also, it has not been interpreted to mean that if the student failed geometry, they must re-take geometry in the summer (or even another math class for that matter). We are addressing number of failures and classes...not course content.
Q.: We have several students that have not done well in regular education classes that will be in an on-site GED program during the 2004-2005 school year. In your opinion, are these students eligible to compete in extra-curricular activities?
A.: Provided these students are enrolled as full-time students, same as every other student, make the necessary grades (not more then one F, etc.), are within the eight consecutive semester allowance and age rule and follow your participation code, there is little reason to deny them the opportunity to participate. You can find the added definition for full-time student on p. 34 of the new handbook.
Q.: I have a question regarding academic eligibility of a transfer student. The student transferring to our school passed all of his classes for the second semester, but had failing grades for two of the classes in the fourth quarter. Which grades take precedence for academic eligibility, the second semester grades or the fourth quarter grades?
A.: The WIAA does not determine whether a school must count the quarter or semester grade. That's the school's "call". Our only stipulation is that whatever you use to determine academic eligibility it is the "standard" and is used all of the time and by all sport participants. (Not using the quarter grades for "this student or team" and the semester grade for the other student or team.) If there is a trend, it might be to look at the quarter grades for sport eligibility. If eligibility is a "privilege" then some feel that maintaining that privilege is an earn as you go proposition, and that the quarter grade is the most accurate reflection of what the "student's doing now" in order to preserve the privilege of access to sport competition. In this situation the discussion revolves around whether to use semester grades or quarter grades, when a student is transferring, the "receiving school's" academic policy is applied regarding semester or quarter grade usage. But always apply the sending code for the determination of ineligibility. If the sending school is one failing grade and one quarter of ineligibility while your code is two failing grades and 15 scheduled school days of ineligibility, use the sending school's one failing grade and one quarter of ineligibility. In cases where there is a code of conduct issue lingering, the sending school's code applies. That's the code the student knew and "signed on to."
Q.: Last year, we had foreign exchange students who were sophomores. They were members of a program and WIAA eligible. This year as juniors they returned and were not part of a program and, therefore, not WIAA eligible. If they return next year as seniors would they be eligible to participate? I am reading the rule stating that after one year of ineligibility students become eligible if attendance is continuous.
A.: You are correct. Handbook, p. 33/Section 5 A-1.