So noticed something in the Agenda for the meeting April 24th and 25th ...wanted to see everyone's opinions. Agenda Item 12.2.1 discusses the fact that some schools allow 6th,7th,and 8th graders to compete at the HS level, but those grades do not count towards their Population Number for classification. My understanding of what is being discussed is either we count them in the population or make a rule eliminating 6th,7th, and 8th graders from being allowed to compete in FHSAA. Currently schools were required to include the online students as part of their population numbers (non-traditional students) are counted in population so why not count 6-8th graders?

From the Agenda and attached Documents

2. DISCUSSION ITEM:
Policy 12.2.1 - Classification based on enrollment in grades 9-12, but are allowed
to use students in grades 6,7, or 8th to field teams …

Schools arc classified on the basis of their 9-12 enrollment, but yet may have additional 6,7, or 8th grade students who are available to be participate in athletics, but are not counted toward classification purposes. Non traditional students are now counted in the student population report. If schools are not counting their students under the 9th grade then should they be allowed to participate in athletics? If schools wish to use students in 6th-Sth grade in athletics then grades 6-8 should count toward student population report in October, or any student who participates on a roster in grade 6,7,8 should be counted as a non-traditional student in the October report.

@raycer131

Good question. The only thing I can think of is that even though FHSAA allows this to happen, not all schools that are capable choose to do it. They just have their HS athletes compete. So they should not have their 6-8th grade populations count towards their classification.

@RayRodriguez
so which is a better solution? Here are a few choices
1) Make a rule that no MS grade students can compete
2) Make a rule that schools with the capability of MS students participating must count them towards population
3)Make a rule that schools have to declare by a certain date (the population date) and can only change it on reclassification years (pursuant to FHSAA rules)
4)Keep the status quo

I think those are the only options really

@raycer131

There are a lot of philosophical things to unpack from this proposal. First acknowledging that a 12th grader is more likely to contribute than a 6th grader, does there need to be a weighting system for counting middle school athletes? Also acknowledging that a 7th grade girl is more likely to contribute than a 7th grade boy.

There is also the factor that having a middle school feeder system built into your program can be a massive advantage in itself for the long term.

I think my ultimate question would be what percentage of schools in each classification actually have the ability to draw from middle school athletes? My gut instinct would be that 1A and 2A schools have a high percentage while 3A and 4A don't.

@raycer131

I am not sure what the goal is...and this is why.

Most (if not all) of the schools that have 6th, 7th, or 8th graders participating in high school are private schools.

1) Schools like Columbus, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Lourdes Academy are already 4A schools, so including those middle schoolers in the population count will do nothing as they will remain in 4A

2) Smaller private schools John Paull II, North Florida Christian, and Father Lopez will probably remain in 1A classification if middle schoolers are added to the population count.

So, this seems to be targeting a handful of schools in the 2A and 3A classifications where MAYBE a very few get bumped up.

3) If any 1A schools get bumped up, then there will be fewer schools participating at the 1A level.

4) If you make a rule to not allow MS to compete at the high school level, then some of those 1A programs might get wiped out and not field a team for a number of years or simply drop their program and eliminate the offering of XC.

5) Arguing these private high schools have a built in feeder system is misleading. You still have to get the kids to come out. Public high schools have several middle schools that feed into them (meaning they have more volume and choice than a private school). There have been high school coaches who also coach at one of their MS feeder schools or create MS clubs or develop relationships with those MS coaches. Nothing different when comparing to a private school. Yes, it is not as convenient as the private school, but from a pure numbers point of view...I can easily argue the public high school has a much larger MS feeder system than the private school.

My vote would be to leave the status quo until some stats come out as to what positive and negative effects this would have on the sport here in Florida. Also, what prompted this to be placed on the agenda?

@raycer131

I'm not trying to make a case for any of it. I'm just coming up with a possible explanation.

But I am curious about the result since I have a MS on my campus. I just want to make sure that it is known that there are public schools that fall into this category too.

My school would remain 2A if we counted our MS population too. And if it bumped us up, so be it.

As someone that has spent a good bit of time in both private and public worlds, here is my take. Many small private schools need those middle school kids to field teams. I never cared if they counted them toward classification and I still don't. By all means if some think it levels the field, count them. But, I don't think we should bar them from competing. Too many programs will suffer. A few schools may move up a class, but that's ok. In Georgia all private schools must compete one class up anyway. At least that's how it was a few years ago.

It's also hard when we're in an environment where we have a handful of public schools that are Jr/Sr, too. I think the fundamental debate is down to whether or not a middle schooler is comparable, from a competition standpoint, to a student who might be four or five years older. What makes that even more complicated is that the answer is sometimes yes, and sometimes no. Honestly, if they wanted to count MS (if the middle school and high school share a campus) in a school's enrollment and it caused us to move up a classification, so be it. It's probably a somewhat fair trade for the additional high school level coaching those kids are able to receive. No matter what, the wrong answer is barring them from competition.

@coachbutler
100% agreed
With one extra point
No one can tell me that those MS students that get to compete do not have a chance of being better as Juniors and Seniors or contributing more as underclassman with the extra experience gained. I say let them run...but they should count towards the number regardless of where it puts a school in classifications.

@Scisorkick
True on many points...but is it not fair to say that a 9th 10th 11th or 12th grader that has been in the program for 3 years already and getting exposure to compete is more likely to not only contribute but be more impactful.

I don't think the size or make-up of the school should matter either
There are 3 options to me thats it
A----MS students are not allowed to run
or
B----MS students can compete
----i----count them in population
----ii---do not count them in population

To me it is that simple...

For me if they compete they should count...they are competing after all, or at least have the opportunity to compete.

@multijumps
1) True for Track and XC classifications but not necessarily in all sports ( i have not looked yet)

2) Just because it would not affect them is not a reason to not count them
It is not targeting anyone it is trying to make population counting (which is the basis for our classification system) equitable based on athletes allowed to compete

3) Not true at all... The way they classify is list all schools competing in each sport by population size then choose a cut toff number that is "close" to dividing it into the same number per Classification. Example...600 schools compete in XC the bottom 150 or close to 150 will be 1A.

4) Agreed that is true...I am not advocating to not allow them to compete personally...just that they should be counted

5)You cannot coach the HS and MS unless they are together, that is recruiting (if it is a feeder school). You are correct about the club aspect that is true, but in theory that could be called recruiting also, though no one turns people in for it. NO CLUE WHAT BROUGHT IT UP, just saw it was there

I coach in a 1A program with a middle school on campus. We typically don't need to move middle school athletes up to varsity because we typically have enough to field a team. And rarely are our middle school athletes (had a thrower a few years ago, but that's it) good enough to compete against high schoolers. So it work's itself out naturally. This year I have two middle school girl throwers who showed early promise and because of COVID and our funky middle school schedule (limited meets and limited practice days) the collective decision was to move them both up to varsity and both have benefited tremendously. Both are throwing at the regional meet in 2 weeks and one will likely medal at the state meet. Had they stayed with our middle school program they wouldn't be anywhere near where they are now.

@raycer131

6.3.2 Definition of Recruiting. Recruiting is the use of undue influence or special inducement by anyone associated with the school in an attempt to encourage a prospective student to attend or remain at that school for the purpose of participating in interscholastic athletics.

Coaching a MS athlete does not imply "Recruiting." There are many ethical HS coaches who can coach the club or MS athlete and never attempt to get the MS athlete to attend their HS.

Is there an FHSAA bylaw that says you can not coach a HS and MS unless they are together?

Does anyone have thoughts on the following scenario:

Little Bobby attends MS "A" and MS "A" is zoned to attend HS "B."

Since by zone rule, no amount of coercing is going to get Bobby to go to HS "B." He is going to HS "B" with or without the coercing. Why wouldn't the HS "B" coach be allowed to communicate with Bobby?

Now, if HS "C" chimes in and coerces Bobby to attend HS "C", then a recruiting violation as well as an improper contact violation has occurred. I get that because Bobby is not zoned for HS "C"

@Coach_PTS
That is awesome for you and them. I have 0 issues. Imagine how great they will be 6 years from now still under your supervision. My issue is that they should count towards population. There are a ton of 4a programs that can't field teams in certain sports. They don't get to move down to 1a because they don't have a team (they can request to be a class lower with a waiver but thats rare).
Having MS students able to compete gives the opportunity to have not only more athletes, but also have them longer. That is unfair if that pool of athletes is not counted is my stance. I do not mind them competing just count them and adjust the population to reflect the true pool of athletes at the school.

@multijumps
but that is then giving some coaches the ability to do so and limiting others. remember rules have to be universal. In my district its school choice, so you can choose between 5 or 6 HS in some cases. If you were to coach the MS also that would be a huge conflict

@raycer131

For some reason I did not see your "feeder school" in parenthesis. I was trying to find the bylaw that says you can contact MS students if they are your feeder school...but I could not find it.

I think school choice is what most districts currently experience. I never really knew what was happening at the MS level. My thought was always....I'll pay attention to them when they show up for Day 1 of practice at the HS.

raycer131 wrote:

---

@Coach_PTS
That is awesome for you and them. I have 0 issues. Imagine how great they will be 6 years from now still under your supervision. My issue is that they should count towards population. There are a ton of 4a programs that can't field teams in certain sports. They don't get to move down to 1a because they don't have a team (they can request to be a class lower with a waiver but thats rare).
Having MS students able to compete gives the opportunity to have not only more athletes, but also have them longer. That is unfair if that pool of athletes is not counted is my stance. I do not mind them competing just count them and adjust the population to reflect the true pool of athletes at the school.

I think what I was trying to communicate is that I see the advantage of being able to move a middle school athlete up to varsity. I'm ok with however the FHSAA want to handle this.

@raycer131

#3 of your options in your reply to Ray R.

The reality is middle school students on the same campus in the same practice as students in grade 9-12 "add value" to a team, the athletic program, the entire school. There are different avenues in which the "added value" works ….vis a vis schools without a 6-12 athletic connection.

Example 1:
The student scores in regular season and or the state series. For example: A host of girls 1a and 2a xc teams ….. An extreme example would be Montverde girls 2016 xc getting 4th place at states with 5 of top 7 being middle school students.
Middle school kids score all the time at the state series in many different sports but it is probable most pronounced in girls xc. That value added needs to "COUNT" in a school population recognized by fhsaa. This is NOT a value judgement on the programs themselves ….just basic numerical honesty … you score, you count as part of the population.

Example 2:
The 6-8 student is mentored by older 9-12 students while in middle school, then experiences elevated development over time due to a MORE functional coaching, teaching, mentorship relationship. At a later date (grades 9-12), the student is a contributor to teams score in a "value added" level. This in my opinion adds more value than example one. The mentorship relationship is actual much stronger asset in at risk communities than example 1, but still strong at any level. Imagine Collier mentoring sixth graders, fabulous! This value addition is hard to quantify, and is rarely discussed, but I can assure you it is a game changer. This is sport culture development at work. This value added benefit would happen regardless of if the student in grades 6-8 competes ( example 7th grade quarterback boy is not going to compete/score at state series as quarterback, but can be a remarkably better quarterback a few years later via a mentoring process). Should 6-8 students be counted if the school/ AD elects not to allow grades 6-8 to compete with 9-12? No, even though it does create some level of competitive advantage over time

Example 3:
Total sports program and academics of the school benefit. Any time you can give a kid a high quality education continuously on the same campus from sixth grade to 12th grade you will add value to the sports programs as a whole. Parents like grades 6-12 education combined with sports, and they will move toward magnetically toward those schools if given opportunity (free of burden of money or distance)

Notes: there should be no rule for middle school not to compete in high school FROM the STATE. There are too many benefits for the kids allowing for the opportunities to be mentored.

@multijumps

on your example:

" "Little Bobby attends MS "A" and MS "A" is zoned to attend HS "B."

Since by zone rule, no amount of coercing is going to get Bobby to go to HS "B." He is going to HS "B" with or without the coercing. Why wouldn't the HS "B" coach be allowed to communicate with Bobby? "

I am that specific example, and have always told my middle school students " I cannot encourage you to be on my high school team or even advise you or you family to attend the high school you are zoned for based on athletics." that is my communication line.

encouraging any middle school kid to attend any high school based on the athletics opportunities of that high school is outside my boundaries. Now I will DNF at the state series for tactical or other purposes… .. this is well inside my ethics.

@multijumps
JPII does not have middle school, and we are typically one of the smaller schools anyway in our XC district (probably track too). I do think it can put a 1A team without middle schoolers at a disadvantage when most of the other teams in their district or region do have middle schoolers, especially in distance events. I definitely think having the kids for 7 years gives teams an advantage. With that being said, I have no idea how widespread this issue is, or how many schools would be bumped up if they had to count middle school population, so I think that is something that should be looked at if change is contemplated.