Is it true the Lacrosse player from Lightridge HS was Bullied or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care if she transfers? If she isn’t a starter and didn’t play, it will change nothing except the kid will be happy.

I mean isn’t she at the new school? Sounds like she was committed to leaving and left. Let her play!

This scenario creates two challenges - one for the player and one for VHSL.

Assuming this statement about her being a non-impact player was just made by others as justification to accept the athletic transfer, what happens if the player does start or plays a lot? This places the player in a no win situation. If she starts or plays her true intentions for transferring will be questioned and would seem to validate what many on this board have been saying, the change was really about sports.

If the VHSL allows any player to simply transfer because the student was “committed to leaving and left” how would they ensure fairness of play and competition? This opens the door for players in any sport to leave for whatever school they believe has the best team, coach, academics, most friends, presents the best opportunity to receive college offers, etc. Recruiting at the high school level becomes an even bigger reality in this situation. Their rules are in place to protect all.

Hopefully this situation has brought light to the fact LCPS and VHSL have different transfer rules. LCPS has to grant a transfer student waiver before the VHSL will consider the matter. One does not guarantee the other. Hard lesson learned, but one others should keep in mind for the future.

What it does is show that this is not good. If someone decides a school transfer has merit based on mental health or bullying then it should be across the board waiver. Playing sports or being involved in extracurriculars are positive ways to heal so it should be all or nothing and consistent. Hopefully this at least shines a light on that. And for any athlete needing to transfer in Loudoun it’s just sent a message you better have the funds to rent or buy in the desired location or have the funds to go private, and that’s out of touch for many.

This is not the first time a student has been accepted by LCPS and denied by VHSL.

I don’t know the details presented by this student to secure the LCPS waiver, but isn’t the threshold for changing schools low and simply based on capacity in Loudoun County? If the school has room transfers are usually granted assuming the student can get to/from school with their own transportation. The student then applies for a waiver each year. The vetting process for approving a change in schools by the LCPS is not too strict.

The VHSL is completely separate from LCPS. They are responsible for ensuring fair play in sports across the state. Their policy is clear in that transfers accepted by a new school will be required to sit out of sports for a year. The exception being students moving into the new school district.

I’m not saying this is the case with this one student, but with schools setting the transfer bar so low based on capacity the potential for schools to recruit athletes is real. To discourage this behavior and keep sports fair the VHSL enforces the one-year ban on playing sports. I would imagine the bar is very high for the VHSL to allow a transfer. Clearly, in their minds it was not met in this case.

This student’s parents knew the rules, or should have known them. There should not have been any expectation on their part of a waiver approval by the VHSL, especially when others have been denied in the past. And while their intent for seeking a waiver may have been good, they have to understand not everyone’s intentions are and respect the VHSL’s decision to enforce their rules to protect sports. Not maintaining a high bar for sports waivers could lead to recruiting chaos.

Testimony in court showed the parents were explicitly told in writing she wouldn't be eligible to play sports if she transferred. They thought they could get a waiver. And then it was denied and they went on the warpath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the parents and community truly cared about mental health and bullying (two very serious topics) why was a formal complaint not made against the previous program? The remedy would have been to replace the coach and educate the current players on what is acceptable and what is not. In other words, fix the situation. This way the player can stay in the home school. No move would be needed. If the old program was what they say it was, why subject future players to that environment?

"Bullying" is a complex issue. It is very much a perspective thing. There are certain kids who lack a social IQ, who don't know how to socialize and say things that are offensive or demeaning without knowing it and therefore are not well liked by others.

Anyone with kids probably has seen this play out. Not speaking on this case as I don't know any details but you can't just shut down a program or fire coaches because of bullying allegations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care if she transfers? If she isn’t a starter and didn’t play, it will change nothing except the kid will be happy.

I mean isn’t she at the new school? Sounds like she was committed to leaving and left. Let her play!

This scenario creates two challenges - one for the player and one for VHSL.

Assuming this statement about her being a non-impact player was just made by others as justification to accept the athletic transfer, what happens if the player does start or plays a lot? This places the player in a no win situation. If she starts or plays her true intentions for transferring will be questioned and would seem to validate what many on this board have been saying, the change was really about sports.

If the VHSL allows any player to simply transfer because the student was “committed to leaving and left” how would they ensure fairness of play and competition? This opens the door for players in any sport to leave for whatever school they believe has the best team, coach, academics, most friends, presents the best opportunity to receive college offers, etc. Recruiting at the high school level becomes an even bigger reality in this situation. Their rules are in place to protect all.

Hopefully this situation has brought light to the fact LCPS and VHSL have different transfer rules. LCPS has to grant a transfer student waiver before the VHSL will consider the matter. One does not guarantee the other. Hard lesson learned, but one others should keep in mind for the future.

What it does is show that this is not good. If someone decides a school transfer has merit based on mental health or bullying then it should be across the board waiver. Playing sports or being involved in extracurriculars are positive ways to heal so it should be all or nothing and consistent. Hopefully this at least shines a light on that. And for any athlete needing to transfer in Loudoun it’s just sent a message you better have the funds to rent or buy in the desired location or have the funds to go private, and that’s out of touch for many.

This is not the first time a student has been accepted by LCPS and denied by VHSL.

I don’t know the details presented by this student to secure the LCPS waiver, but isn’t the threshold for changing schools low and simply based on capacity in Loudoun County? If the school has room transfers are usually granted assuming the student can get to/from school with their own transportation. The student then applies for a waiver each year. The vetting process for approving a change in schools by the LCPS is not too strict.

The VHSL is completely separate from LCPS. They are responsible for ensuring fair play in sports across the state. Their policy is clear in that transfers accepted by a new school will be required to sit out of sports for a year. The exception being students moving into the new school district.

I’m not saying this is the case with this one student, but with schools setting the transfer bar so low based on capacity the potential for schools to recruit athletes is real. To discourage this behavior and keep sports fair the VHSL enforces the one-year ban on playing sports. I would imagine the bar is very high for the VHSL to allow a transfer. Clearly, in their minds it was not met in this case.

This student’s parents knew the rules, or should have known them. There should not have been any expectation on their part of a waiver approval by the VHSL, especially when others have been denied in the past. And while their intent for seeking a waiver may have been good, they have to understand not everyone’s intentions are and respect the VHSL’s decision to enforce their rules to protect sports. Not maintaining a high bar for sports waivers could lead to recruiting chaos.

Testimony in court showed the parents were explicitly told in writing she wouldn't be eligible to play sports if she transferred. They thought they could get a waiver. And then it was denied and they went on the warpath.

Doesn't mean it's right. Only athletes are penalized for making a move to preserve their mental health? Not band members, actors, artists, debaters, robotics team members, math team members, student council presidents, etc.? Anyone can game the system it sounds like as long as there's space in a school but only an athlete being bullied and/or struggling with mental can't continue with something that helps them. Sounds wrong and illegal. And maybe parents had hope because another athlete in a couple of competitive sport at the same school was granted the waiver to play? But they should have just rented a house in the new zone and made it easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the parents and community truly cared about mental health and bullying (two very serious topics) why was a formal complaint not made against the previous program? The remedy would have been to replace the coach and educate the current players on what is acceptable and what is not. In other words, fix the situation. This way the player can stay in the home school. No move would be needed. If the old program was what they say it was, why subject future players to that environment?

"Bullying" is a complex issue. It is very much a perspective thing. There are certain kids who lack a social IQ, who don't know how to socialize and say things that are offensive or demeaning without knowing it and therefore are not well liked by others.

Anyone with kids probably has seen this play out. Not speaking on this case as I don't know any details but you can't just shut down a program or fire coaches because of bullying allegations.

Bullying is not a “perspective thing”—thats dangerous to say. It's real and pervasive especially with social media that disappears with no record. If your child has not experienced it consider yourself lucky and for parents who think no way your kids could be involved talk to them because even just by laughing at a comment or a social media post or not saying anything to stop it makes them part of the problem. A lot of the bullying is in middle school so the ones who are so immature and insecure who continue to bully in high school are scary. That said, yes, people overuse the term but generally there is bad behavior involved and often the parents dismissing it have children involved.

And saying kids who say odd or inappropriate things and are therefore just unpopular or unliked excuses bad behavior. Often the kids who say these things have social or other issues maybe diagnosed or maybe not, may be going through some,, and maybe just need some nice friends to model better social IQ. How about let's teach our kids kindness and to include these kids struggling to fit in. Having one friend, and having classmates and teammates being inclusive, etc. can make a huge difference. Stop with the victim blaming!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the parents and community truly cared about mental health and bullying (two very serious topics) why was a formal complaint not made against the previous program? The remedy would have been to replace the coach and educate the current players on what is acceptable and what is not. In other words, fix the situation. This way the player can stay in the home school. No move would be needed. If the old program was what they say it was, why subject future players to that environment?

"Bullying" is a complex issue. It is very much a perspective thing. There are certain kids who lack a social IQ, who don't know how to socialize and say things that are offensive or demeaning without knowing it and therefore are not well liked by others.

Anyone with kids probably has seen this play out. Not speaking on this case as I don't know any details but you can't just shut down a program or fire coaches because of bullying allegations.

Bullying is not a “perspective thing”—thats dangerous to say. It's real and pervasive especially with social media that disappears with no record. If your child has not experienced it consider yourself lucky and for parents who think no way your kids could be involved talk to them because even just by laughing at a comment or a social media post or not saying anything to stop it makes them part of the problem. A lot of the bullying is in middle school so the ones who are so immature and insecure who continue to bully in high school are scary. That said, yes, people overuse the term but generally there is bad behavior involved and often the parents dismissing it have children involved.

And saying kids who say odd or inappropriate things and are therefore just unpopular or unliked excuses bad behavior. Often the kids who say these things have social or other issues maybe diagnosed or maybe not, may be going through some,, and maybe just need some nice friends to model better social IQ. How about let's teach our kids kindness and to include these kids struggling to fit in. Having one friend, and having classmates and teammates being inclusive, etc. can make a huge difference. Stop with the victim blaming!

No one victim blaming here. I'm not even getting into social media. Yes, kids should be taught to be kind, turn the other cheek, try to be inclusive but I'm simply saying that who is being a bully and who is a bully can often times be a perspective thing, esp with teenage girls, which is so much more social thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the parents and community truly cared about mental health and bullying (two very serious topics) why was a formal complaint not made against the previous program? The remedy would have been to replace the coach and educate the current players on what is acceptable and what is not. In other words, fix the situation. This way the player can stay in the home school. No move would be needed. If the old program was what they say it was, why subject future players to that environment?

"Bullying" is a complex issue. It is very much a perspective thing. There are certain kids who lack a social IQ, who don't know how to socialize and say things that are offensive or demeaning without knowing it and therefore are not well liked by others.

Anyone with kids probably has seen this play out. Not speaking on this case as I don't know any details but you can't just shut down a program or fire coaches because of bullying allegations.

Bullying is not a “perspective thing”—thats dangerous to say. It's real and pervasive especially with social media that disappears with no record. If your child has not experienced it consider yourself lucky and for parents who think no way your kids could be involved talk to them because even just by laughing at a comment or a social media post or not saying anything to stop it makes them part of the problem. A lot of the bullying is in middle school so the ones who are so immature and insecure who continue to bully in high school are scary. That said, yes, people overuse the term but generally there is bad behavior involved and often the parents dismissing it have children involved.

And saying kids who say odd or inappropriate things and are therefore just unpopular or unliked excuses bad behavior. Often the kids who say these things have social or other issues maybe diagnosed or maybe not, may be going through some,, and maybe just need some nice friends to model better social IQ. How about let's teach our kids kindness and to include these kids struggling to fit in. Having one friend, and having classmates and teammates being inclusive, etc. can make a huge difference. Stop with the victim blaming!

No one victim blaming here. I'm not even getting into social media. Yes, kids should be taught to be kind, turn the other cheek, try to be inclusive but I'm simply saying that who is being a bully and who is a bully can often times be a perspective thing, esp with teenage girls, which is so much more social thing.

You're dismissing it—having teenage girls myself I've seen one experience mean girl behavior, not quite bullying, but those girls smiled to my face and acted so sweet while members of Morgan’s Message and having Bible verses on their bios. Thankfully I'd seen exactly what they'd said on social media so knew who they truly were. And I've also heard my kids say things that were unkind and exclude others mainly by not standing up to the ones instigating it but it’s prompted lots of conversations on kindness, inclusion and what can happen to a kid who isn't shown those things. Although they're not perfect their philosophy is to focus on themselves, school, sports, etc. and have even said its obvious that the mean kids are insecure and jealous and need to focus on themselves. We've also discussed that the mean kids often have issues at home, struggling in school, etc. and that it doesn't excuse their behavior but helps explain it. Regardless, if a kid is saying they're bullied we need to listen and believe them.

[Anonymous]

So, there is another angle to LCPS and the transfer rules as it pertains to athletes that isn't talked about, and Indy in particular. When student-athletes transfer to other schools, for any reason, they are potentially taking roster spots away from other student are suppose to attend that school. I have seen this happen, and the kid had played that sport for many years, was competitive, but the HS Coach, was also a travel coach and got several of their players to come to Indy. Would he have made the team, who knows, but when the coach is bringing players into Indy, it isn't to cut them after tryouts.

There is not easy answer, every situation, school and athletic program is different from year to year, but there should be a rule about going to another school and athletics. what that rule would loom like and could it be enforced?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the parents and community truly cared about mental health and bullying (two very serious topics) why was a formal complaint not made against the previous program? The remedy would have been to replace the coach and educate the current players on what is acceptable and what is not. In other words, fix the situation. This way the player can stay in the home school. No move would be needed. If the old program was what they say it was, why subject future players to that environment?

"Bullying" is a complex issue. It is very much a perspective thing. There are certain kids who lack a social IQ, who don't know how to socialize and say things that are offensive or demeaning without knowing it and therefore are not well liked by others.

Anyone with kids probably has seen this play out. Not speaking on this case as I don't know any details but you can't just shut down a program or fire coaches because of bullying allegations.

Bullying is not a “perspective thing”—thats dangerous to say. It's real and pervasive especially with social media that disappears with no record. If your child has not experienced it consider yourself lucky and for parents who think no way your kids could be involved talk to them because even just by laughing at a comment or a social media post or not saying anything to stop it makes them part of the problem. A lot of the bullying is in middle school so the ones who are so immature and insecure who continue to bully in high school are scary. That said, yes, people overuse the term but generally there is bad behavior involved and often the parents dismissing it have children involved.

And saying kids who say odd or inappropriate things and are therefore just unpopular or unliked excuses bad behavior. Often the kids who say these things have social or other issues maybe diagnosed or maybe not, may be going through some,, and maybe just need some nice friends to model better social IQ. How about let's teach our kids kindness and to include these kids struggling to fit in. Having one friend, and having classmates and teammates being inclusive, etc. can make a huge difference. Stop with the victim blaming!

No one victim blaming here. I'm not even getting into social media. Yes, kids should be taught to be kind, turn the other cheek, try to be inclusive but I'm simply saying that who is being a bully and who is a bully can often times be a perspective thing, esp with teenage girls, which is so much more social thing.

Spoken like someone that was a bully. Probably a big failure in life now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the parents and community truly cared about mental health and bullying (two very serious topics) why was a formal complaint not made against the previous program? The remedy would have been to replace the coach and educate the current players on what is acceptable and what is not. In other words, fix the situation. This way the player can stay in the home school. No move would be needed. If the old program was what they say it was, why subject future players to that environment?

"Bullying" is a complex issue. It is very much a perspective thing. There are certain kids who lack a social IQ, who don't know how to socialize and say things that are offensive or demeaning without knowing it and therefore are not well liked by others.

Anyone with kids probably has seen this play out. Not speaking on this case as I don't know any details but you can't just shut down a program or fire coaches because of bullying allegations.

Bullying is not a “perspective thing”—thats dangerous to say. It's real and pervasive especially with social media that disappears with no record. If your child has not experienced it consider yourself lucky and for parents who think no way your kids could be involved talk to them because even just by laughing at a comment or a social media post or not saying anything to stop it makes them part of the problem. A lot of the bullying is in middle school so the ones who are so immature and insecure who continue to bully in high school are scary. That said, yes, people overuse the term but generally there is bad behavior involved and often the parents dismissing it have children involved.

And saying kids who say odd or inappropriate things and are therefore just unpopular or unliked excuses bad behavior. Often the kids who say these things have social or other issues maybe diagnosed or maybe not, may be going through some,, and maybe just need some nice friends to model better social IQ. How about let's teach our kids kindness and to include these kids struggling to fit in. Having one friend, and having classmates and teammates being inclusive, etc. can make a huge difference. Stop with the victim blaming!

No one victim blaming here. I'm not even getting into social media. Yes, kids should be taught to be kind, turn the other cheek, try to be inclusive but I'm simply saying that who is being a bully and who is a bully can often times be a perspective thing, esp with teenage girls, which is so much more social thing.

Spoken like someone that was a bully. Probably a big failure in life now.

Yep, sounds like this poster may be feeling some guilt for their past behavior or their child’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care if she transfers? If she isn’t a starter and didn’t play, it will change nothing except the kid will be happy.

I mean isn’t she at the new school? Sounds like she was committed to leaving and left. Let her play!

This scenario creates two challenges - one for the player and one for VHSL.

Assuming this statement about her being a non-impact player was just made by others as justification to accept the athletic transfer, what happens if the player does start or plays a lot? This places the player in a no win situation. If she starts or plays her true intentions for transferring will be questioned and would seem to validate what many on this board have been saying, the change was really about sports.

If the VHSL allows any player to simply transfer because the student was “committed to leaving and left” how would they ensure fairness of play and competition? This opens the door for players in any sport to leave for whatever school they believe has the best team, coach, academics, most friends, presents the best opportunity to receive college offers, etc. Recruiting at the high school level becomes an even bigger reality in this situation. Their rules are in place to protect all.

Hopefully this situation has brought light to the fact LCPS and VHSL have different transfer rules. LCPS has to grant a transfer student waiver before the VHSL will consider the matter. One does not guarantee the other. Hard lesson learned, but one others should keep in mind for the future.

What it does is show that this is not good. If someone decides a school transfer has merit based on mental health or bullying then it should be across the board waiver. Playing sports or being involved in extracurriculars are positive ways to heal so it should be all or nothing and consistent. Hopefully this at least shines a light on that. And for any athlete needing to transfer in Loudoun it’s just sent a message you better have the funds to rent or buy in the desired location or have the funds to go private, and that’s out of touch for many.

This is not the first time a student has been accepted by LCPS and denied by VHSL.

I don’t know the details presented by this student to secure the LCPS waiver, but isn’t the threshold for changing schools low and simply based on capacity in Loudoun County? If the school has room transfers are usually granted assuming the student can get to/from school with their own transportation. The student then applies for a waiver each year. The vetting process for approving a change in schools by the LCPS is not too strict.

The VHSL is completely separate from LCPS. They are responsible for ensuring fair play in sports across the state. Their policy is clear in that transfers accepted by a new school will be required to sit out of sports for a year. The exception being students moving into the new school district.

I’m not saying this is the case with this one student, but with schools setting the transfer bar so low based on capacity the potential for schools to recruit athletes is real. To discourage this behavior and keep sports fair the VHSL enforces the one-year ban on playing sports. I would imagine the bar is very high for the VHSL to allow a transfer. Clearly, in their minds it was not met in this case.

This student’s parents knew the rules, or should have known them. There should not have been any expectation on their part of a waiver approval by the VHSL, especially when others have been denied in the past. And while their intent for seeking a waiver may have been good, they have to understand not everyone’s intentions are and respect the VHSL’s decision to enforce their rules to protect sports. Not maintaining a high bar for sports waivers could lead to recruiting chaos.

Testimony in court showed the parents were explicitly told in writing she wouldn't be eligible to play sports if she transferred. They thought they could get a waiver. And then it was denied and they went on the warpath.

Doesn't mean it's right. Only athletes are penalized for making a move to preserve their mental health? Not band members, actors, artists, debaters, robotics team members, math team members, student council presidents, etc.? Anyone can game the system it sounds like as long as there's space in a school but only an athlete being bullied and/or struggling with mental can't continue with something that helps them. Sounds wrong and illegal. And maybe parents had hope because another athlete in a couple of competitive sport at the same school was granted the waiver to play? But they should have just rented a house in the new zone and made it easier.

Jiminy Crickets, Lauren, just STOP with this absurd linkage to other activities.

Yes, athletics are a different category given their inherent competitive nature. This is why they're covered by a STATE-WIDE SANCTION (VHSL).

It's not "wrong" and it's certainly NOT illegal. First, you tried to insinuate that the denial of your daughter's waiver had implications for other activities (it doesn't). Now you seem to be saying it SHOULD have implications for other activities (it won't). This is one of the many reasons you lost, hun -- you kept changing the message and moving the goal posts.

Land the helicopter, hun. I'm sorry your DD didn't get to play HS lacrosse this season. But believe it or not, she hasn't been wronged or cheated or injured. She'll live. And you need to land the damn helicopter. You're beyond ridiculous and you aren't doing her any favors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care if she transfers? If she isn’t a starter and didn’t play, it will change nothing except the kid will be happy.

I mean isn’t she at the new school? Sounds like she was committed to leaving and left. Let her play!

This scenario creates two challenges - one for the player and one for VHSL.

Assuming this statement about her being a non-impact player was just made by others as justification to accept the athletic transfer, what happens if the player does start or plays a lot? This places the player in a no win situation. If she starts or plays her true intentions for transferring will be questioned and would seem to validate what many on this board have been saying, the change was really about sports.

If the VHSL allows any player to simply transfer because the student was “committed to leaving and left” how would they ensure fairness of play and competition? This opens the door for players in any sport to leave for whatever school they believe has the best team, coach, academics, most friends, presents the best opportunity to receive college offers, etc. Recruiting at the high school level becomes an even bigger reality in this situation. Their rules are in place to protect all.

Hopefully this situation has brought light to the fact LCPS and VHSL have different transfer rules. LCPS has to grant a transfer student waiver before the VHSL will consider the matter. One does not guarantee the other. Hard lesson learned, but one others should keep in mind for the future.

What it does is show that this is not good. If someone decides a school transfer has merit based on mental health or bullying then it should be across the board waiver. Playing sports or being involved in extracurriculars are positive ways to heal so it should be all or nothing and consistent. Hopefully this at least shines a light on that. And for any athlete needing to transfer in Loudoun it’s just sent a message you better have the funds to rent or buy in the desired location or have the funds to go private, and that’s out of touch for many.

This is not the first time a student has been accepted by LCPS and denied by VHSL.

I don’t know the details presented by this student to secure the LCPS waiver, but isn’t the threshold for changing schools low and simply based on capacity in Loudoun County? If the school has room transfers are usually granted assuming the student can get to/from school with their own transportation. The student then applies for a waiver each year. The vetting process for approving a change in schools by the LCPS is not too strict.

The VHSL is completely separate from LCPS. They are responsible for ensuring fair play in sports across the state. Their policy is clear in that transfers accepted by a new school will be required to sit out of sports for a year. The exception being students moving into the new school district.

I’m not saying this is the case with this one student, but with schools setting the transfer bar so low based on capacity the potential for schools to recruit athletes is real. To discourage this behavior and keep sports fair the VHSL enforces the one-year ban on playing sports. I would imagine the bar is very high for the VHSL to allow a transfer. Clearly, in their minds it was not met in this case.

This student’s parents knew the rules, or should have known them. There should not have been any expectation on their part of a waiver approval by the VHSL, especially when others have been denied in the past. And while their intent for seeking a waiver may have been good, they have to understand not everyone’s intentions are and respect the VHSL’s decision to enforce their rules to protect sports. Not maintaining a high bar for sports waivers could lead to recruiting chaos.

Testimony in court showed the parents were explicitly told in writing she wouldn't be eligible to play sports if she transferred. They thought they could get a waiver. And then it was denied and they went on the warpath.

Doesn't mean it's right. Only athletes are penalized for making a move to preserve their mental health? Not band members, actors, artists, debaters, robotics team members, math team members, student council presidents, etc.? Anyone can game the system it sounds like as long as there's space in a school but only an athlete being bullied and/or struggling with mental can't continue with something that helps them. Sounds wrong and illegal. And maybe parents had hope because another athlete in a couple of competitive sport at the same school was granted the waiver to play? But they should have just rented a house in the new zone and made it easier.

Jiminy Crickets, Lauren, just STOP with this absurd linkage to other activities.

Yes, athletics are a different category given their inherent competitive nature. This is why they're covered by a STATE-WIDE SANCTION (VHSL).

It's not "wrong" and it's certainly NOT illegal. First, you tried to insinuate that the denial of your daughter's waiver had implications for other activities (it doesn't). Now you seem to be saying it SHOULD have implications for other activities (it won't). This is one of the many reasons you lost, hun -- you kept changing the message and moving the goal posts.

Land the helicopter, hun. I'm sorry your DD didn't get to play HS lacrosse this season. But believe it or not, she hasn't been wronged or cheated or injured. She'll live. And you need to land the damn helicopter. You're beyond ridiculous and you aren't doing her any favors.

Sorry, hate to disappoint you, but there are others besides the family who are now concerned with the implications. And by the parents vs their haters actually signing their name on here they actually actually garnered respect even though I don't agree with their approach. Guess what—marching bands, robotics teams, math teams, DECA, etc. have STATE WIDE competitions, too! There is an inequity in how athletes are treated, period. Most of the athletes aren't going to have their college applications boosted by being a member of the lacrosse team as much as these and other resume boosters like student that student government and the arts do, so yes, it's not right.

You grossly have zero empathy for the child, which is so scary if you're a parent! Or maybe you're a teen, but either way take a look in the mirror and think about how you’d feel if it were your child or you experiencing this. Hopefully that would elicit a little compassion whether you agree with the result or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care if she transfers? If she isn’t a starter and didn’t play, it will change nothing except the kid will be happy.

I mean isn’t she at the new school? Sounds like she was committed to leaving and left. Let her play!

This scenario creates two challenges - one for the player and one for VHSL.

Assuming this statement about her being a non-impact player was just made by others as justification to accept the athletic transfer, what happens if the player does start or plays a lot? This places the player in a no win situation. If she starts or plays her true intentions for transferring will be questioned and would seem to validate what many on this board have been saying, the change was really about sports.

If the VHSL allows any player to simply transfer because the student was “committed to leaving and left” how would they ensure fairness of play and competition? This opens the door for players in any sport to leave for whatever school they believe has the best team, coach, academics, most friends, presents the best opportunity to receive college offers, etc. Recruiting at the high school level becomes an even bigger reality in this situation. Their rules are in place to protect all.

Hopefully this situation has brought light to the fact LCPS and VHSL have different transfer rules. LCPS has to grant a transfer student waiver before the VHSL will consider the matter. One does not guarantee the other. Hard lesson learned, but one others should keep in mind for the future.

What it does is show that this is not good. If someone decides a school transfer has merit based on mental health or bullying then it should be across the board waiver. Playing sports or being involved in extracurriculars are positive ways to heal so it should be all or nothing and consistent. Hopefully this at least shines a light on that. And for any athlete needing to transfer in Loudoun it’s just sent a message you better have the funds to rent or buy in the desired location or have the funds to go private, and that’s out of touch for many.

This is not the first time a student has been accepted by LCPS and denied by VHSL.

I don’t know the details presented by this student to secure the LCPS waiver, but isn’t the threshold for changing schools low and simply based on capacity in Loudoun County? If the school has room transfers are usually granted assuming the student can get to/from school with their own transportation. The student then applies for a waiver each year. The vetting process for approving a change in schools by the LCPS is not too strict.

The VHSL is completely separate from LCPS. They are responsible for ensuring fair play in sports across the state. Their policy is clear in that transfers accepted by a new school will be required to sit out of sports for a year. The exception being students moving into the new school district.

I’m not saying this is the case with this one student, but with schools setting the transfer bar so low based on capacity the potential for schools to recruit athletes is real. To discourage this behavior and keep sports fair the VHSL enforces the one-year ban on playing sports. I would imagine the bar is very high for the VHSL to allow a transfer. Clearly, in their minds it was not met in this case.

This student’s parents knew the rules, or should have known them. There should not have been any expectation on their part of a waiver approval by the VHSL, especially when others have been denied in the past. And while their intent for seeking a waiver may have been good, they have to understand not everyone’s intentions are and respect the VHSL’s decision to enforce their rules to protect sports. Not maintaining a high bar for sports waivers could lead to recruiting chaos.

Testimony in court showed the parents were explicitly told in writing she wouldn't be eligible to play sports if she transferred. They thought they could get a waiver. And then it was denied and they went on the warpath.

Doesn't mean it's right. Only athletes are penalized for making a move to preserve their mental health? Not band members, actors, artists, debaters, robotics team members, math team members, student council presidents, etc.? Anyone can game the system it sounds like as long as there's space in a school but only an athlete being bullied and/or struggling with mental can't continue with something that helps them. Sounds wrong and illegal. And maybe parents had hope because another athlete in a couple of competitive sport at the same school was granted the waiver to play? But they should have just rented a house in the new zone and made it easier.

Jiminy Crickets, Lauren, just STOP with this absurd linkage to other activities.

Yes, athletics are a different category given their inherent competitive nature. This is why they're covered by a STATE-WIDE SANCTION (VHSL).

It's not "wrong" and it's certainly NOT illegal. First, you tried to insinuate that the denial of your daughter's waiver had implications for other activities (it doesn't). Now you seem to be saying it SHOULD have implications for other activities (it won't). This is one of the many reasons you lost, hun -- you kept changing the message and moving the goal posts.

Land the helicopter, hun. I'm sorry your DD didn't get to play HS lacrosse this season. But believe it or not, she hasn't been wronged or cheated or injured. She'll live. And you need to land the damn helicopter. You're beyond ridiculous and you aren't doing her any favors.

Sorry, hate to disappoint you, but there are others besides the family who are now concerned with the implications. And by the parents vs their haters actually signing their name on here they actually actually garnered respect even though I don't agree with their approach. Guess what—marching bands, robotics teams, math teams, DECA, etc. have STATE WIDE competitions, too! There is an inequity in how athletes are treated, period. Most of the athletes aren't going to have their college applications boosted by being a member of the lacrosse team as much as these and other resume boosters like student that student government and the arts do, so yes, it's not right.

You grossly have zero empathy for the child, which is so scary if you're a parent! Or maybe you're a teen, but either way take a look in the mirror and think about how you’d feel if it were your child or you experiencing this. Hopefully that would elicit a little compassion whether you agree with the result or not.

Au contraire, I feel very sorry for the child, whose parents have steered her badly into a victim mindset, taught her to act with entitlement, and made her a spectacle in this whole thing.

This weird attempt to connect athletics to other activities is a complete red herring. There's no precedent, nor should there be. Athletics ARE a separate class of activities, with a statewide governing body. If those other activities had statewide governing bodies, I'm sure they'd have rules governing transfers, too. But let's be honest, district hopping for athletics and coaches is a bigger issue than someone who wants to be in another school's marching band.

[Anonymous]

There’s was always private school! I guess it’s a little late in the game for that one.

[Anonymous]

You know, all these people keep insisting that Independence High School's coach wasn't involved in trying to recruit her to the team.

YET, the person who started the "Change.org" petition as part of the pressure campaign is named Natalie Drevers, who identifies as the player's college recruiting director, *has the same surname* as the Indy coach...

Compare:

https://www.change.org/p/petition-loudoun-county-public-schools-allow-lily-sigler-to-play-lacrosse?recruiter=1279238597&recruited_by_id=8c798a40-45eb-11ed-9022-dda85f88f4f9&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=share_for_starters_page&utm_medium=copylink&fbclid=IwAR2-GvltB4S4IKVMU_t_2pT_SiIPNDuhunyzpf6EUX8TalDQ_HY2JcnfGtM
 
https://www.loudountimes.com/dana-leanne-drever-independence-high-school-girls-lacrosse-coach/image_2b0b549e-6167-11ee-8a1d-77d0c13b0140.html

[Anonymous]

Woops, the Indy coach was charged with embezzling from the club team ... where the player in question was a memberg.

https://www.loudountimes.com/news/lacrosse-coach-charged-with-embezzlement/article_acd28656-6143-11ee-b8d8-57b4125ec436.html

How sordid is this whole thing? Wow.